Prayers

The House met in a hybrid proceeding.

Arrangement of Business
 - Announcement

Baroness Henig: My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber and others are participating remotely but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I shall immediately adjourn the House.
Oral Questions will now commence. Can those asking supplementary questions keep them to no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.

Gambling: Early Mortality
 - Question

Bishop of St Albans: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the research by Dr Naomi Muggleton linking gambling and early mortality, published in Nature Human Behaviour on 4 February, what plans they have to transfer responsibility for gambling policy to the Department of Health and Social Care.

Baroness Barran: My Lords, responsibility for gambling is shared across departments. DCMS leads on industry regulation, which is key to harm prevention. DHSC leads on gambling as a health issue and on treatment, and we work closely together. We are pleased to see more research being done and we are considering the findings carefully. Dr Muggleton’s research shows a correlation between higher gambling spend and lower well-being but does not look at causes.

Bishop of St Albans: I thank the Minister for her response. As the recent research suggests, gambling-related harm and problem gambling produce a negative result across a whole variety of indicators, including health. Despite this, the Government continue to hold on to the idea that the industry is a net contributor to the Treasury, without taking into account the huge other costs being incurred. Will the Government consider undertaking a comprehensive study of the direct and associated costs, such as health, incarcerations, homelessness and social welfare, all caused by gambling harm, which materially affect the Treasury’s receipts?

Baroness Barran: The right reverend Prelate raises important points. He will be aware that Public Health England is doing research at the moment,  looking at how to reduce gambling harms and how to recoup the costs to society, which I hope will go some way to reassuring him.

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: My Lords, the excellent Select Committee report may not have endorsed the current split in policy leadership but it made it very clear that DCMS had a lot to do. In that context, can the Minister confirm that the online harms Bill will deal with underage gambling and issues raised by the question put by the right reverend Prelate, such as an association between gambling and early mortality—and if not, why not?

Baroness Barran: The main focus for addressing the issues that the noble Lord rightly raises is through our review of the Gambling Act. The online safety Bill, as he is aware, will focus on user-generated content in particular.

Lord Smith of Hindhead: My Lords, with reference to my interests as set out in the register, and bearing in mind the good advice that prevention is always better than cure, would my noble friend tell the House how many schools have included teaching students about the risks of potential gambling harm in PSHE classes or, indeed, whether schools are being actively encouraged to incorporate that important subject?

Baroness Barran: The Department for Education does not record how schools teach their pupils about gambling, but young people will be taught about gambling risks as part of the statutory health education curriculum, including the accumulation of debt. Training modules have been developed for teachers, including a specific section on gambling.

Lord Foster of Bath: My Lords, only 3% of problem gamblers currently receive treatment. The planned new gambling clinics will help, but far more is needed. Given that one gambling company owner earned nearly £0.5 billion last year, much of it from problem gamblers, should not all gambling companies pay more to fund treatment through a compulsory levy?

Baroness Barran: As I mentioned in response to an earlier question, that is one of the issues that will be considered as part of the review of the Gambling Act. I can update the House that there has been an increased donation this year to GambleAware from the industry of £19 million, up from £10 million last year, and next year’s donation is forecast to be £26 million.

Lord Moynihan: Does my noble friend agree that Dr Muggleton stressed that the report could not say whether the association between gambling and any negative effect, including increased mortality, was causal? As a result, does she agree that in government DCMS should continue to focus on the most vulnerable through advertising and the location of betting shops in impoverished neighbourhoods rather than make policies drawn on direct causal links which the research does not conclude?

Baroness Barran: I can agree with my noble friend’s first statement. I would just expand on his suggestion about the role of DCMS. The department is very clear that we have an important role in protecting vulnerable people who may be harmed by gambling in particular, and we work across government to achieve that.

Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, I cannot support the change in departmental responsibility suggested in the right reverend Prelate’s Question, but this is clearly a matter that raises the responsibilities  of a wide range of government departments. What  are the Government’s arrangements for enhancing departmental co-operation in addressing this crucial issue? Will they, for example, establish a bespoke departmental committee to co-ordinate action?

Baroness Barran: I am not aware of specific plans such as those the noble Lord suggests, but I can reassure the House that co-operation between departments on this important matter is strong and effective.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Does the Minister agree with the comment of the Lancet Public Health last January, that:
“Gambling disorders often remain undiagnosed and untreated”,
and its call for a scientific inquiry into this
“urgent, neglected, understudied, and worsening public health predicament”?
If not, how would she describe it? Are the Government, as part of their review of gambling, considering the practicalities of a statutory duty of care for gambling companies, similar to the one we expect to be in the online safety Bill?

Baroness Barran: The noble Lord raises an interesting point. It is significant, in relation to disorders such as gambling problems remaining hidden, that the Gambling Commission has recently appointed a panel of individuals with lived experience to advise it formally on player safety. We hope this means that currently hidden issues will become more visible, and we will be able to address them.

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville: My Lords, despite the Government’s cross-departmental insistence that treatment for gambling problems will be prioritised, the scope of the call for evidence in the review of the Gambling Act 2005 made no mention of a public health approach. Such an approach would allow the treatment of gambling problems to be delivered in the same way as drug and alcohol addictions are treated. The Minister is aware of this. What action does she intend to take to rectify it?

Baroness Barran: I recognise the noble Baroness’s point about the specific language around public health, but if we look at what constitutes a public health approach, we see that it is inherent in the work being carried out. In particular, the Gambling Commission, as part of its role, looks broadly at the products, the players and the environment in which they operate.

Lord Mann: The vast majority of people who follow horseracing and football have no gambling problems whatever. Addiction manifests itself in many different ways. Does the Minister agree that it is the role of the Department of Health and Social Care to get into the precise causation that creates addictive behaviour, in whatever form it manifests itself?

Baroness Barran: The noble Lord is right. That is why the Department of Health and Social Care is leading on the addiction strategy and the addiction treatment strategy for the Government, and why the review of the Act seeks to strike the right balance between consumer freedom and preventing harm.

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth: My Lords, nobody doubts my noble friend’s commitment, but in view of the need to protect, in particular, vulnerable children from gambling addiction, can she say when the Government last convened a meeting with the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Treasury to consider these issues, which are clearly of great importance?

Baroness Barran: I am not aware of the exact date to give to my noble friend, but I can reassure him that the issue that raised the most contributions in response to our call for evidence was the protection of children and young people.

Baroness Henig: My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question.

National Marriage Week
 - Question

Baroness Eaton: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to recognise National Marriage Week; and what account they take of the role of marriage in the development of policy.

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: My Lords, there are no plans to recognise National Marriage Week. We recognise the role that marriage can play as the basis for family life. The public sector equality duty requires us to pay due respect to the impact of policy and decisions on different people, including those who are married or in civil partnerships. The family test helps ensure that policy decisions take into consideration impacts on family relationships and functioning, including for people who are married.

Baroness Eaton: I thank my noble friend for her Answer. Is she aware that it is 10 years this year since a Minister last recognised National Marriage Week? There are many Members who regret this and would welcome some recognition of the stability found in marriage and the benefit that stability brings to  children. Government as a whole is clearly not reluctant to recognise and celebrate many sorts of days, weeks and months, but, as I say, it is 10 years since some positive recognition of marriage came from a Minister. Will my noble friend undertake to speak to the Secretary of State for Education, who now holds responsibility for family across government, and ask him to provide Members of both Houses with details of how he intends to promote marriage within his new role?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: My Lords, we recognise the role that marriage can play as the basis of family life for those couples who want their relationship to be recognised through this lasting commitment. But families come in all shapes and sizes, and we want to ensure that any type of family can provide a nurturing environment for children so that they can succeed and lead happy, fulfilling lives. The Secretary of State for Education, in his role to improve outcomes for families, would, I am sure, be happy to discuss these issues further with my noble friend.

Bishop of London: My Lords, I certainly commend National Marriage Week to this House, especially as one of the themes this year is that a wedding does not have to be an expensive extravaganza. The fees for a church wedding or a simple registry office ceremony are very modest indeed, but the wedding industry is busily ramping up expectations of what a special day should involve. How will Her Majesty’s Government work to encourage couples to understand that marriage itself matters far more than the commercial trappings of a wedding day?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: I have to agree with the right reverend Prelate on the ever-increasing cost of weddings. I am not sure that the Government can get involved, but what has been happening with smaller weddings because of Covid-19 has perhaps made people think they do not need the huge weddings they have had in the past.

Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, as marriage is so important in helping to ensure stability and security for families, especially for children, will the Government ensure that the best tax arrangements are in place to promote marriage, rather than discourage it?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: As my noble friend is, I am sure, aware, the tax system encourages marriage and civil partnerships through the married persons tax allowance. The Government will continue to look at that.

Lord Etherton: My Lords, in the clunky language of the Office for National Statistics, there were estimated to be 71,000
“same-sex married couple families”
in 2020. There was a roughly similar figure for “civil partner couple families” in the same year. Is the Minister able to confirm that any support given by the Government for marriage, whether in recognition of National Marriage  Week or in the development of policy, will always include support for same-sex marriages and civil partnerships?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: I can assure the noble and learned Lord that that is the case. In the tax system and throughout all the support systems the Government are providing for families, we are looking at both marriages and civil partnerships.

Baroness Sherlock: My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the impact of the two-child limit on divorced or widowed parents who wish to get married?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: I think that having an exception for a new family, where two families get together, would be perceived as unfair to those families with three or more children who stay together and receive support from CTC or UC for two children, when more recently formed families would potentially receive support for more than two children. Therefore, I do not think the Government will consider this.

Baroness Janke: My Lords, statistics show that 60% of the marriages of couples aged between 20 and 25 years end in early divorce. Are the Government satisfied about the effectiveness of the PSHE curriculum? Will the Minister ask her noble friend, with his new responsibilities, to look into whether it adequately provides young people with proper and relevant information about marriage, enabling them to make well-informed decisions for the future?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: My Lords, in both primary and secondary schools, we are increasing the amount of relationship education we provide. At the end of primary, we expect that pupils are taught that marriage represents a formal and legally recognised commitment of two people to each other that is intended to be lifelong. At secondary schools, we build on the teaching about that important relationship and the opportunity that marriage provides.

Baroness Stroud: My Lords, family breakdown is not simply an inevitable consequence of modern society. On average, in OECD countries, around 84% of children under 15 still live with both parents. In Finland, 95% of children under 15 still live with both parents, whereas in the UK, as few as two-thirds do. Given that the evidence is clear that family breakdown sits in the backdrop to so many broken lives, entrenching individuals in intergenerational cycles of poverty and instability, what steps are the Government taking to support marriage and, specifically, the couple relationship at the heart of the family, rather than just childcare policies and support for family breakdown—the approach to family policy that is so often taken?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: My noble friend is absolutely right. However, the Government are committed to reducing conflict between parents, whether they are together or separated, to help them manage their differences; conflict can be damaging to children  and impair parenting skills. Sometimes, separation can be the best option for a couple, but even then, continued co-operation and communication between parents promotes better outcomes for children. DWP’s Reducing Parental Conflict programme is encouraging councils across the country to integrate services and approaches that address parental conflict into their local provision for families.

Baroness Henig: We do not have the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Farmer.

Lord Farmer: My Lords, marriage is a protected characteristic in our equalities legislation and results in more stable families, as we have heard already. What plans do the Government have to increase the value of the married couples tax allowance in recognition of these facts or otherwise address the UK tax burden on single-earner couple families with children, which is 25% greater than the OECD average?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: My noble friend always brings up a difficult issue. The recipients of the marriage allowance have benefited from large increases in personal allowance; that is linked to the marriage allowance, which has almost doubled in the last decade. The Government remain committed to recognising marriage and the commitment it entails in the tax system while supporting low-earning families. The Government keep all aspects of the tax system under review, including the marriage allowance, and any decisions on future changes will be taken by the Chancellor as part of the annual Budget process.

Lord Curry of Kirkharle: My Lords, the Minister is, of course, correct in recognising that everyone has a choice in their relationships, but does she agree that the evidence is indisputable that children benefit from growing up within a stable marriage? Of course, there are wonderful exceptions, but socially and academically, marriage is of huge benefit to children. Can she confirm that the Government agree with this and outline what they intend to do to support it?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: The Government’s view is that a strong, stable and happy family life is important for children and young people. That can come in many guises. It could be marriage—which could be a same-sex relationship—or one of the numerous other relationships we have in our modern society.

Baroness Henig: My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.

Gender-balanced Parliament and Male Primogeniture
 - Question

Lord Lucas: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Prime Minister’s statement on 20 November 2020 supporting a 50:50 gender-balanced Parliament, what plans they have to amend male primogeniture.

Lord True: My Lords, as the Prime Minister has made clear, we want to see more women in Parliament. That is a much wider issue than male primogeniture, but reform of the succession to hereditary peerages and baronetcies raises a variety of complex issues, and therefore any changes need careful consideration  and wider engagement.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am very grateful for my noble friend’s reply. Does he agree that small, symbolic issues matter in our gradual progress towards female equality? The monarchy having shown the way in the matter of the inheritance of titles, will Her Majesty’s Government take whatever opportunity next presents itself to engage in the detailed consideration to which my noble friend refers?

Lord True: My Lords, many proposals have been put forward, and many have failed to find support. I know that my noble friend put forward a Private Member’s Bill in 2013 for a voluntary approach, but the issues are, as I say, complex.

Baroness Gale: Is the Minister aware that, since 1958, only 326 life Peers created have been women, representing 21% of the total? Not one woman hereditary Peer sits in this House today, and that is why I fully agree with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Does the Minister agree that in any other place this would be regarded as totally unacceptable and could be reported to the Equality and Human Rights Commission as blatant discrimination?

Lord True: My Lords, hereditary peerages are not currently created. There are life Peers in your Lordships’ House and the life peerage is gender-blind. There are 223 female Peers currently, 28% of the Members of the House of Lords. The Government’s aspiration is, of course, to see more.

Lord Tyler: My Lords, do the Government accept that the simplest and quickest way to make progress in this direction, so far as this House is concerned, without complex legislation, would be to abolish the by-elections for hereditary Peers, since all the candidates are male? This temporary political fix of more than 20 years is well past its sell-by date. Will the Minister undertake to communicate to his colleagues the overwhelming view of this House that this should be included in the Government’s legislation for the coming Session?

Lord True: My Lords, it is not for me to comment on legislation in the forthcoming Session, but I would advise the noble Lord not to be a betting man.

Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, my noble friend will be totally aware that I am a product of male primogeniture, and he will realise, no doubt, that I have an interest in the whole subject. What plans, if  any, do Her Majesty’s Government have to amend male primogeniture in the hereditary peerage and baronetage?

Lord True: My Lords, a review is not currently under way. As I have explained, this is a complex issue and careful consideration will be needed.

Baroness Prashar: While it is encouraging that the Prime Minister supports a 50:50 gender-balanced Parliament, it is very disappointing that progress has been so slow, and we still have a law that discriminates against women. What steps will be taken to ensure that women from minority communities are not left behind in whatever initiative is taken in this direction?

Lord True: The noble Baroness makes a very important point. Improving the diversity of Parliament is something to which I believe all political parties assent, and this Government no less than any other. Beyond your Lordships’ House, where we must sometimes look, there are now 220 female Members of Parliament; that is more women in the House of Commons than ever before. That is surely progress.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raises the issue of male primogeniture, which is clearly unfair, but I have to say that, of all the issues of gender equality where I would seek to make a difference, it is probably not top of my list. I bring the Minister back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. Hereditary by-elections have had their day; the legislation is outdated. If we want to address what is clearly an inequality, in that there are no female hereditary Peers in this House—the issue of peerages outside the House is a completely different one—surely the Government should support the Grocott Bill when it will undoubtedly come before your Lordships’ House again, and not let it be wrecked by a few. It is time for the Government to show some courage on this issue.

Lord True: My Lords, the Government assent to the rule of law, and I believe that the law as is should be applied in this respect.

Lord Addington: My Lords, I have to declare an interest as a hereditary Peer but one who has only a daughter. I suggest that the Government will lose nothing by bringing forward something that allows this to happen. As for hereditary by-elections, given that people who were conceived after the system was instituted are now voting adults, surely it has had its day and has not worked as a stimulus to further reform.

Lord True: My Lords, I think we have discussed the issue of hereditary by-elections. On the matter of succession to titles, any change would affect many families, many of whom have no claim to be Members of your Lordships’ House, and all those issues and interests would have to be considered.

Baroness Uddin: My Lords, male primogeniture is indefensible and damages our striving for equality and justice. Ever-increasing numbers of Members are being appointed to this House and, continuing in the time-honoured tradition, men are favoured, leaving just 223 female Members in this Chamber, as the Minister indicated. I welcome the Minister’s assurance and the Prime Minister’s promise, but, given the perceptible resistance to recognising institutional gender and race discrimination, what plans are in place to remedy this?

Lord True: My Lords, until we have full reform of your Lordships’ House, if Parliament decides on that, recommendations for life peerages are in the hands of leaders of political parties. Of Peers appointed by the current Prime Minister, 32% have been women, as against 29% under Gordon Brown and 23% under Mr Blair. Again, I suggest that that represents progress.

Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I declare my interest as a hereditary Peer. My noble friend the Minister said that this requires careful consideration and is a complex matter: that is everyday meat for any Government. Will my noble friend encourage his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to undertake a review of this matter once and for all, so that the eldest child can inherit a title where that is applicable?

Lord True: My Lords, I am sure my friends and I will read the views of my noble friend, and indeed all others who have spoken, with due respect. However, I believe that, at the height of this pandemic, and given the need we have to recover, it may well be that some people in the country have other priorities.

Baroness Deech: Whether or not hereditary peerages remain, it is time to get some sex equality into this House. The husbands of noble Baronesses get second-class treatment, and this is highly symbolic. Only a few days ago, the entire nation noted the essential support given by Prince Philip to his wife, but the support given by the husbands of noble Baronesses is ignored compared with the recognition, by the title “Lady”, of the wives of noble Lords. Does the Minister agree that our husbands should be given a title equivalent to that granted to the wives, or that the latter should lose theirs?

Lord True: My Lords, the noble Baroness touches on another issue which has its own sensitivities. Reform of courtesy titles in the honours system as well as the peerage system—this is not a matter of heredity—may not be straightforward, but there is a need to consider how to deal with existing entitlements.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I was deputy to two women Secretaries of State—Clare Short and Helen Liddell, now my noble friend Lady Liddell of Coatdyke—who were both excellent Cabinet Ministers? Since Boris Johnson has only five women in his Cabinet, could the  Minister use his undoubted influence and have a word with him to appoint more women instead of old Etonians and male clones?

Lord True: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord does not see in me a clone of the Prime Minister—my hair is a different colour, for a start. I would love to have the noble Lord as my deputy. I repeat that the aspiration of the Prime Minister, reflected in peerage creations and the number of MPs in the House of Commons, is to see more women in Parliament.

Baroness Henig: My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.

Domestic Air Travel
 - Question

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the passing of a law by the National Assembly of France to prohibit domestic flights to destinations that can be reached by train in two and a half hours or less, what consideration they have given to reducing domestic air travel in the United Kingdom.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: My Lords, domestic air travel in the UK ensures regional connectivity and often assists ongoing international travel. It is also vital for supporting jobs, trade and investment and ensures that social connections can be maintained. The Government recognise the critical role that aviation plays in delivering the UK’s net-zero commitment, and we support a variety of technology, fuel and market-based measures to address aviation emissions.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: It is interesting that our Government are slower to see the societal changes happening because of the pandemic than the French Government. In France, people do not want to travel as much; they have found that remote working is very effective and it has not affected the economy of most big businesses. Will the Government, after all their fine promises today, stop airport expansion and create some policies which will enable jobs to be green instead of planet-destroying?

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: The noble Baroness has deviated far from the Question at hand. Of course the Government are very focused on a green, sustainable recovery. As she will have noted in media reports today, the Government will announce further details on carbon emissions later this week.

Lord Haselhurst: My Lords, as high-speed rail lines seem to attract stronger opposition in this country than in France, does my noble friend agree that a better course of action than that suggested by  the noble Baroness would be to prioritise investment in electric and hydrogen-powered aircraft to better serve the regional network?

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: My noble friend is quite right that we need an aviation sector strong enough to be able to invest in decarbonisation for the future. Alongside the aviation industry, the Government are investing in the Aerospace Technology Institute, which is leading work on the delivery of zero-emission aircraft. This includes FlyZero, a £15 million project that will last for 12 months and is an in-depth study into the potential for zero-emission aircraft by 2030.

Lord Berkeley of Knighton: My Lords, given the Prime Minister’s very welcome endorsement of climate control, does the Minister agree that the statistic that on a similar route an aircraft emits 77% more CO2 than a train is clearly striking? On the other hand, does she also agree that France will probably scrap only five routes as a result of this initiative, so in this country—depending, as we have heard, on the efficiency of trains—there are sadly not many routes to which this initiative would apply?

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: The noble Lord is quite right; I have looked at this and there are probably three routes to which this would apply—for Manchester, Leeds Bradford and Exeter. Our expectation is that many passengers travelling on those domestic routes would be making an international connection, so even in France their flights would not be banned. This Government do not propose to ban domestic flights; we propose investing in high-speed rail and ensuring that our aviation sector as a whole contributes to decarbonisation.

Lord Snape: My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that the speed of the French TGV had an enormous impact on the internal aviation market in that country and that timings under HS2 such as two hours and 17 minutes to Newcastle and 67 minutes to Manchester, as well as the hope for three hours to Glasgow and Edinburgh, will have a similar impact on Britain’s internal aviation? I know that she is not a member of the Green Party, but perhaps she could help me out and explain on its behalf why it is in favour of slower trains on Victorian infrastructure yet against modern high-speed trains on new infrastructure.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: I would love to help the noble Lord. I fear that I am unable to explain it, and the irony in this Question is very clear to me; investment in High Speed 2 is clearly good for the environment and should be continued. As he identified, the journey time savings can be significant as well as capacity.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, yesterday I obtained the figures of the cost of travelling from London to Manchester and Newcastle, and from Paris to Lyons and Marseilles. The costs in France by train in all classes are at least half what they are here, and in France you go twice as fast. You get a double benefit  for the money spent. A lot of answers need to come from the Treasury as to why rail fares in Britain are so much higher than they are elsewhere.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: The noble Lord is quite right that customers could and should make various decisions based on price. That is why the Government asked for the Williams Rail Review to be done; I recognise that it has not yet been published, because of the pandemic, but it will come out shortly. The way we reform our railway systems should have a very positive impact on fares.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a group of Green Party members who call themselves Greens for HS2? They say on social media:
“we should support HS2 because it has a big role in a low-CO2 sustainable transport network for the UK in the 2030s and beyond. HS2 supports our sustainable transport goals, nationally and locally.”
Does the Minister agree that our HS2 project will support the climate case to shift travel from air and road and, indeed, improve wildlife biodiversity? While we are about it, can she confirm that there is no question of delaying the eastern leg of HS2 to the East Midlands, Sheffield and Leeds?

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, indicated to me in the Chamber just then that they are a very small group within the Green Party. I, for one, offer them my wholehearted support, given that they are able to take over the Green Party’s transport policy and align with the Government, who want to see HS2 built.

Lord Balfe: I point out to the Minister that the Greens are now a very respectable party. They will probably go into coalition with the CDU and they are on the point of destroying the German Social Democratic Party. It is therefore not surprising that they support HS2; it is completely in line with the way in which they are re-evaluating themselves. Will the Minister welcome this change from the Green Party, stick a note on her office wall and use it regularly in debates in this Chamber?

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: I do not have a great insight into the Green Party of Germany, but I thank my noble friend for his contribution.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, may I suggest to the Minister that she too establishes a new party, “Conservatives for the eastern leg of HS2”? She used to support this policy, but it has now been delayed and no date has been given. As a result of the delay, there will be no through trains on HS2 between London and Edinburgh—a route that is one of the main sources of domestic aviation. I strongly urge her to be the founding member of “Conservatives for the eastern leg of HS2”.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: I have neither the time nor the energy to set up a new political party, but I reassure the noble Lord that the integrated rail plan  will be published soon and will set out plans for the north of England. We are taking great interest in journey times to, for example, Scotland, under the auspices of the union connectivity review being undertaken by Sir Peter Hendy.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I must declare an interest as I am speaking from France. Does the Minister agree that this is about not only the practicalities—it may affect only four routes—but setting an example in the year in which we are to host COP 26? Does she agree that by taking this action on domestic flights, scrapping support for electric vehicles and slashing the Green Homes Grant, the Government are setting a very poor example?

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: I wish the noble Baroness well in France—and I am sure that I join many in this House in saying that I would quite like to join her. On the premise of this Question, I have outlined that the Government clearly do not support banning domestic flights. That would be absolutely wrong. The noble Baroness also mentioned some other interventions. We have not scrapped electric vehicle grants, as she well knows. The amount of money available is the same, but we want to ensure that it gets to the people who need it most: those who will buy slightly less expensive cars because they probably have a lower income. Therefore, we wanted to make sure that the support that the Government give goes to those cars. Of course, it also encourages the manufacturers to reduce the prices of their cars.

Baroness Henig: My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Sitting suspended.

Arrangement of Business
 - Announcement

Baroness Henig: My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.

Football: European Super League
 - Private Notice Question

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Asked by Lord Faulkner of Worcester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reform the governance of English football to prevent the breakaway of six Premier League clubs into a European Super League.

Baroness Barran: My Lords, the Government will not stand by and watch football be stripped of the things that make millions across the country love it. We will continue to look at everything within our power to stop this proposal   going ahead. The Secretary of State spoke to the FA, the Premier League and UEFA yesterday to give them the Government’s full support in pushing back on these proposals in the first instance. However, we stand ready to do whatever is necessary to represent fans and protect their interests.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, the six English clubs that have signed up to this grotesque project have, in the words of Stephen Fry on social media yesterday,
“brought together the whole divided nation, indeed all of Europe—everyone united in disgust & revulsion at such greed and stupidity.”
I look forward to hearing more in due course about how the Government plan to stop it. Meanwhile, I welcome the announcement of the setting up of the Government’s fan-led review into the administration of English football, chaired by the excellent Tracey Crouch MP. Can the Minister assure me that the terms of reference for the review will definitely include the possibility of establishing a statutory independent regulator? Reform here is long overdue.

Baroness Barran: I thank the noble Lord for his warm welcome to the announcement of the fan-led review and its chair. I can confirm that it will cover the merits of having an independent regulator, as well as financial sustainability and governance.

Lord Addington: My Lords, do the Government agree that many people regard this proposal as an attack on our cultural heritage? In light of that, will they be even fiercer in trying to prevent these clubs forming in effect a cartel to control the revenues of the biggest spectator sport in the world? Will they make sure that other European nations are actively involved with them in preventing this?

Baroness Barran: We absolutely agree that this is an attack on our heritage, and nothing is off the table when it comes to protecting it, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said yesterday.

Lord Laming: My Lords, the clubs supporting this proposal often claim that their fans are the beating heart of all that they do, yet sometimes it seems as if the loyalty of these very fans counts for little. Yesterday’s ministerial Statement was most welcome, but can the noble Baroness assure the House that, before any further action is taken, each of these clubs will be required to put the proposal to a vote, at least of their season ticket holders?

Baroness Barran: It will be up to the football authorities in the first instance to determine how to deal with this proposal but, as I have made clear, they have our full backing.

Lord Grade of Yarmouth: My forecast on the outcome of the Super League proposal will be some resolution through the courts, not the legislatures. The last time the courts were involved in football governance we ended up with the Bosman ruling,  which just created more and more millionaire players and their agents, which was hardly in the public interest. Do this Government accept that they may well be powerless to intervene when my learned friends on both sides of the channel start to challenge the cartels that run football on behalf of the Super League?

Baroness Barran: I hope that my noble friend’s prediction about a resolution in the courts is wrong, because that implies a long and drawn-out process. As I have said, the Government are exploring all options to prevent this proposal, and we will continue to work with the football authorities and our counterparts across Europe to achieve this.

Lord Pendry: My Lords, I commend the robust stance taken by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and all those who have condemned this proposal for a so-called super league. It is unfortunate that five of the six clubs involved are foreign owned, with clearly no understanding of the depth of feeling of British supporters, who recognise that the football league structure is based on our heritage. Therefore, we must fight to ensure that this Super League is swept away and that football does not fall on the altar of greed and avarice. It was one of the great football managers, the late Bill Shankly at Liverpool, who once slightly exaggerated the interpretation of football’s importance when he said that football is not,
“a matter of life and death: it’s much more important than that.”
If Bill were here today, what would he think of his beloved Liverpool pursuing this act of folly? Will the Minister go along with the football supporters to show this group of individuals the red flag, or should I say the red card?

Baroness Barran: I do not think that the owners of the clubs to which the noble Lord refers can be in any doubt about the strength of feeling both from the fans and from this Government.

Lord McNally: My Lords, will the Minister ask Tracey Crouch to hold public hearings around the regions while she conducts her inquiry?

Baroness Barran: I am sure that she will consider all her options to make sure that this is a transparent and effective review.

Lord O'Neill of Gatley: My Lords, I too express my disgust at this development. It is the culmination of many years of the style of ownership that has been so permissible under the way football has evolved. I am extremely sad that my own football obsession, Manchester United, is right in the middle of it. I applaud the Government’s seemingly strong stance. In this regard, I echo the call from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for an independent regulator to stop things persistently falling through the cracks of the structure of the FA, the Football League and the Premier League. Will the Government be prepared to go as far as introducing legislation to encourage a partial fan-based ownership model, similar to that currently operating in Germany? It is almost definitely,  with no surprise, among the reasons why no German teams have been announced as part of this ridiculously named European Super League.

Baroness Barran: The Government have been consulting with fans and football stakeholders throughout the past year to understand exactly what is needed in the review. The Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State have both said that legislation is not ruled out, but we should not pre-empt the work of the review, which will start shortly.

Baroness Altmann: My Lords, I, too, commend the Government on their robust response. As a Tottenham Hotspur supporter, a club that is involved in this, I, too, join in the condemnation of this idea. It seems to revolve around money rather than football. I ask my noble friend whether the Treasury might consider international tax co-ordination to address this issue via financial means?

Baroness Barran: My noble friend raises an interesting point. We have been clear that the football authorities are best placed to push back on these proposals in the first instance—they have our backing—but that nothing is off the table if they fail to do so.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought Gary Neville spoke for millions of us football fans at the weekend when he condemned the Super League proposals. Can the Minister set out the sort of legal measures the Government are prepared to deploy in order to protect the competition laws that govern the current fair access system on which the football pyramid has long been built? When will the Secretary of State set out the terms for the fan-led review announced yesterday, when will it start and how will it seek to draw on the fan anger rightly directed at this football-destroying proposition?

Baroness Barran: With regard to the fan-led review, we will be releasing the full terms of reference imminently. In relation to the noble Lord’s question about what the Government can practically do to prevent this, we are looking at everything from governance reform, as I mentioned, to competition law and all the mechanisms which allow football to take place. We have been in close contact with colleagues from BEIS and the Competition and Markets Authority, who are examining whether this would contravene competition law.

Lord King of Lothbury: Does the Minister agree that the outpouring of concern about the proposed European Super League shows that the organisation of professional football is not just a matter for private clubs to determine among themselves and that the relationship between clubs and their fans is not the same as that between a supermarket and its customers? Has not the time come to create a regulatory framework within which the governance and finances of the game can be managed with a degree of competence that has been sadly lacking in recent years?

Baroness Barran: The noble Lord is absolutely right, and this will be covered in our fan-led review. I think the House will share my confidence in Tracey Crouch as its chair, as the former Minister for Sport is very well placed to lead this.

Lord Moylan: My Lords, I react with some horror to the proposals for yet another regulator, which will end up simply being gamed by the big clubs, as most regulators tend to be. Instead I second the remarks of my noble friend Lady Altmann, who said that there should be a fiscal solution to this problem by way of imposing a non-dodgeable tax on sports clubs joining closed leagues, which I suggest should be equivalent to 100% of their broadcasting revenues. Would my noble friend be willing to put this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Baroness Barran: There is great elegance in the apparent simplicity of my noble friend’s suggestions, but I just repeat that in the first instance, it is for the football authorities to deal with this and respond to the outpouring that we have heard from across the country.

Lord Austin of Dudley: My Lords, clubs cannot hoover up £300 million a year and pay the world’s best players wages that nobody else can match so that they can dominate domestic competitions as well. Fans of other clubs, such as Leicester, West Ham and my club, Villa, could never dream of competing for domestic trophies ever again. It is a closed shop cartel, anti-competition, anti fair play, and anti the very ethos of sport. Of course the football authorities should take a tough line, but the Government should be looking at this as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, is entirely correct: given that this is just about money, would not the threat of a windfall tax make the clubs think again?

Baroness Barran: I share many of the noble Lord’s sentiments, other than the implication that we are not taking this seriously: we are taking it extremely seriously. The Prime Minister had a round table this morning with all the relevant authorities and, as I said, nothing is off the table.

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, does the Minister accept that this outrageous proposal is a consequence of men who are rich enough to buy a football club but who do not buy into the values of football in this country? We all accept that Tracey Crouch is someone we have confidence in to undertake a review, but surely there is an urgency about this  that requires action at the moment along the lines that have been suggested, including early legislation for  an independent regulator, an assurance that fans can have a golden share and whatever fiscal measures might be needed to make it not worth the while of these clubs to go down this path?

Baroness Barran: I know the noble Baroness is hugely knowledgeable and passionate on this subject, and I have enjoyed listening to her in the Chamber in  debates on football ownership and governance in the past. It is important that we separate out the immediate urgencies of the issues raised by this proposal. It will not surprise her to know that Ministers and officials were working on this over the weekend as soon as we became aware, as well as addressing some of the wider governance and regulatory issues and funding issues that affect the whole pyramid.

Baroness Henig: My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.

Audiovisual Media Services (Amendment) Regulations 2021
 - Motion to Approve

Baroness Barran: Moved by Baroness Barran
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 25 February be approved.
Relevant document: 48th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 April
Motion agreed.
Sitting suspended.

Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]
 - Commons Amendments

Lord Russell of Liverpool: My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask all Members to respect social distancing.
There are no counterpropositions to the Commons amendments to the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill, so the only speakers are those listed and the Minister’s Motion may not be opposed. Short questions of elucidation from listed speakers after the Minister’s response are discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question must email the clerk.

Motion

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: Moved by Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 and 2.
1: Clause 22, page 13, line 30, leave out subsection (2)
2: Schedule 8, page 68, line 29, at end insert—“(iv) an offence under the law of Scotland which arises under any other provision of the ANO 2016 and relates to unmanned aircraft, except an offence which is triable only summarily;”

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: My Lords, I do not intend to detain the House for long with my explanation of these amendments, save only to note that the Bill had a relatively incident-free passage through the other place, which I, to a great extent, attribute to the careful consideration it received in your Lordships’ House.
The Bill has returned to enable consideration of two minor amendments made in the other place. The first is Commons Amendment 1, which removed the privilege amendment, as is the norm in these cases. The second amendment—here is the mea culpa—will correct an omission, or an error if you must, in the Bill that resulted from government amendments made in your Lordships’ House on Report.
If I may explain: Schedule 8 provides the police, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and custodial institutions with the powers they need to protect the public from the unlawful use of unmanned aircraft. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 8 sets out the meaning of “relevant unmanned aircraft offence”. Prior to the government amendment made in the other place, the offences in the Air Navigation Order 2016—ANO 2016—included in this definition were summary-only offences. In relation to Scotland, this definition should also include offences in ANO 2016 that are triable either way or on indictment. These offences were included in the definition of “relevant offence” in the Bill as introduced in January 2020. They were inadvertently omitted—that was the error, for which I apologise—by the government amendments tabled on Report in the House of Lords when the provisions setting out the definitions that apply in relation to the power to enter and search under warrant and the supplementary power to retain anything seized were restructured. If not moved, there would be no power for a justice of the peace, summary sheriff or a sheriff in Scotland to issue to a constable a warrant to enter and search premises in relation to offences in the ANO 2016 that relate to unmanned aircraft and can be tried under indictment. The supplementary power for a constable to retain items seized using powers in Schedule 8 for forensic examination, for investigation or for use as evidence at a trial would also not apply in relation to these offences.
The policy intention of the Bill remains unchanged and this amendment will not add any offences or powers not already in the Bill as introduced in January 2020. With humility and apologies from the Department for Transport, I beg to move.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I am pleased to support the Commons amendments as technical changes necessary for the functioning of the Bill. The aviation industry is critical to the UK economy, and since any recovery will no doubt be prolonged, I hope the Bill will provide legislative backing for a modernisation strategy that supports that recovery. Any restructuring must be supported with a transitional strategy, for workers and our regional economy, that capitalises on the opportunity to grow industries in green technology. I look forward to the House revisiting this in the future. I am grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Vere of Norbiton, has engaged with the Opposition Front  Bench during the passage of the Bill. I also thank all those from across the House who have taken part in its stages.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, for her gracious apology on behalf of the department for its omission. Of course, I accept that the amendments are necessary and, like the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I thank all the people who have been associated with the Bill during its fairly long passage. I hope it may now pass into law.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I too support these amendments. Finally, this Bill, which started its passage through Parliament in January 2020 is to reach the statute book. I am sure that, with a justified sense of pride and relief, the Minister and all those in her Bill team, who worked so hard to achieve this outcome, deserve the commendation received from all sides of the House.
It is a piece of legislation that will not stand still. The announcement that the CAA has approved trials of beyond-visual-sight operation of drones will need to be reflected in the instructions for policing unmanned aircraft presently set out in this legislation. That process will continue, I hope smoothly, as technology and experience help to chart the way ahead. Meanwhile, I join in commending the efforts made to enact this important business, for air traffic management in particular.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: I thank all noble Lords for their constructive engagement on these amendments, and for their comments and short contributions today.
Motion agreed.
Sitting suspended.

Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill
 - Third Reading

Motion

Lord Greenhalgh: Moved by Lord Greenhalgh
That the Bill do now pass.

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, in moving this Motion, I express my thanks to noble Lords from across this House for their helpful insight and support throughout proceedings. In particular, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Thomas, Lady Andrews, Lady Randerson and Lady Greengross, and the noble Lords,  Lord Kennedy and Lord Greaves, my noble friend Lord Lucas, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton.
I also thank the National Association of Local Councils, the Local Government Association and the Valuation Office Agency for their engagement during the passage of the Bill. I am especially grateful to the British Toilet Association for its support of the Bill and for taking the time to meet me and noble Lords last month.
Finally, I thank my department’s Bill team: Rhys Tomlinson, Nick Pellegrini, Luke Turner, Alan Millward, Nick Cooper, Lee Davies and Tom Adams, as well as Sam Loxton from my own private office, for their support throughout the passage of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for his engagement in this small but important Bill. I am pleased that it is finally now going to pass; this is the second time I have worked on this Bill—because it was lost before the general election—so it is something I am very well aware of. I thank the noble Lord; he has been very helpful, as always. I join him in thanking all the organisations he mentioned—the LGA, the National Association of Local Councils, the British Toilet Association and others—for their helpful advice, guidance and support. I also thank Ben Wood from the Labour group office for his help and support on the Bill.
I thank all noble Lords who engaged in the Bill, particularly Lord Greaves, whose last speech in this House was on this Bill, as noble Lords may remember, some weeks ago, before he sadly passed away. Although Tony was in a different party from me, he was well respected in the House and was a very good man. He worked as a local councillor and as a Member of this House and he will be missed by us all. I am delighted that the Bill is going to pass.

Baroness Pinnock: My Lords, I point to my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Kirklees Council. Liberal Democrats support the measures in this Bill, and during the debate we have sought to improve accessibility and to extend the reach of the Bill to include other public buildings. I thank the Minister for his positive responses during the passage of the Bill, and for the meetings he held to enable an exchange of ideas. I also extend my thanks to those associations that have helped in the progress of the Bill, so that we all understood exactly what we were trying to achieve.
The Bill was the last time my noble friend Lord Greaves spoke in the House before his sudden and untimely death. It was typical Tony: promoting the value of parish and town councils, making a strong case for the very basic and essential public services provided for communities by local government, and exploring the meaning of the word “mainly”, used throughout the Bill. Tony will be greatly missed on these Benches for his humanity and commitment to communities. I rest my case there and thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for his help in getting this  Bill passed.

Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, it is my pleasant task, on behalf of these Benches, to thank the Minister for the gracious way in which he has conducted this Bill. We have had no Divisions. The Bill has survived unamended, but it has certainly not been without interest, and the Minister has been faced with some powerful contributions during our debates that he has had to answer. We are grateful to him and the Bill team for the care that has been taken in examining the various points that have been raised.
It will not have escaped the Minister’s attention that two of us participating from these Benches had a professional interest in the subject. One was a valuer, with an interest in the valuation aspects, and I am a lawyer, interested in the legal aspects. For both of us, the question was how one could accommodate the undoubted need for public lavatories, in the places where people need them, within the valuation and ratings system. Standalone premises, which this Bill is about, present no problems of that kind, but increasingly, the provision of publicly accessible lavatories within other premises, such as public libraries, is a different matter. The two of us were very much in sympathy with others who were asking the Minister to be more imaginative and generous in searching for a solution to the problem, but we found it as hard as he did to see how this could be done within the boundaries of the existing law and practice of how buildings are valued for rating purposes. In short, the narrow focus of the Bill has been the problem.
Everyone recognises that this is a significant public health issue and an environmental issue. Everyone—young and old, healthy or infirm—needs access to decent lavatory accommodations. There is genuine regret on these Benches and throughout the House that the Bill was unable to go further than it has in finding other ways to meet this need. I hope that the Government will take away from these debates a better understanding of ways in which this could be done by the ideas that have been put forward by various amendments from all around the House. If so, the time that we have spent developing these ideas in debate will have been time well spent. I hope and expect that we have not heard the last word on the subject of public lavatories.

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, we have seen the very best of this House. I really appreciated the professional expertise on the Cross Benches, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. It was incredibly helpful. This is a very complicated area of public policy and it is great to have that expertise to hand.
I add my personal tribute to Lord Greaves. I did not know him particularly well, but he welcomed me as a fellow traveller from local government, where our political paths were very similar. He was almost schooling me on the nature of a probing amendment. I do not think that I have ever had such a lengthy discussion about the word “mainly”. He will be sadly missed.
Bill passed.
Sitting suspended.

Arrangement of Business
 - Announcement

Lord Russell of Liverpool: My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. As there are counterpropositions to one of the Motions, and everything is to be taken in one group, any Member in the Chamber may speak on this group, subject to usual seating arrangements and the capacity of the Chamber. Anyone intending to do so should email the clerk or indicate when asked. Members who do not intend to speak should make room for Members who do. All speakers will be called by the Chair. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are discouraged; a Member wishing to ask such a question must email the clerk.
The grouping is binding. A participant who wishes to press an amendment other than the lead amendment to a Division must give notice in debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw Motions. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group. Lords following proceedings remotely but not speaking may submit their voice, content or not content, to the collection of voices by emailing the clerk during the debate. Members cannot vote by email; the way to vote is via the remote voting system.

Fire Safety Bill
 - Commons Reasons

Motion A

Lord Greenhalgh: Moved by Lord Greenhalgh
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 4B and 4C, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4F.
4F: Because the issue of remediation costs is too complex to be dealt with in the manner proposed.

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for engaging in this important debate throughout the passage of the Bill. We all share the same concerns about the impact that the cost of remediation is having on many leaseholders and tenants. We all agree that we have to protect leaseholders as far as practicable. All in this House agree that residents deserve to be and feel safe in their homes.
I will go on to explain why we consider the proposed amendments in lieu to be both inappropriate and unworkable but first, I want to outline in the strongest way possible the importance of the Bill and the risk that these remediation amendments are creating. Let us be in no doubt about what is at stake here.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have all agreed with the fundamental purpose of what we seek to achieve. We all want to ensure that there is no legal doubt that, under the fire safety order, the responsible person must assess and, as appropriate, identify any fire safety risks relating to the external walls and entrance doors in multi-occupied residential buildings.
We also agree that the current legal ambiguity under the fire safety order is unhelpful. If we do not rectify this now with this Bill, there will be significant ramifications. If we do not clarify this legal ambiguity, responsible persons can continue to argue that they can lawfully and deliberately ignore the external walls and flat entrance doors in their fire risk assessments. This inaction will mean that important defects will not be identified and be left unremedied, potentially increasing fire safety risks for anyone living in such buildings.
Given the repeated agreement, across both Houses, that we need to act, I think we would all also agree that this Bill should go on to the statue book in the next few days. The Commons has already voted against two different remediation amendments put forward by your Lordships’ House, and by substantial majorities of 115 and 69. Prior to that, the issue of remediation costs was discussed at both Commons Committee and Report stages, so the Commons has considered the issue of who pays at four different stages and voted on it twice—each time supporting the Government’s view that provision of this kind is unnecessary. This House has done what is right and proper as a revising Chamber, namely, to ask the Commons to think again—not once, but twice. It is time for your Lordships’ House to respect the will of the elected Chamber. To continue to deny the wishes of the democratically elected Chamber, particularly where the result is an increase in fire safety risks, could ultimately cost lives.
I underline that this Government are committed to protecting leaseholders and tenants from the costs of remediation. Hundreds of thousands of leaseholders will be protected from the costs of replacing unsafe cladding on their homes, as part of the Government’s five-point plan to provide reassurance to home owners and build confidence in the housing market. The £5.1 billion grant funding made available to leaseholders is unprecedented. We take these issues seriously and we are acting. To say otherwise is misrepresentative and simply not correct.
The Government are also taking forward a comprehensive programme of reform to end unfair practices in the leasehold market, from the abolition of ground rents to revising the use of forfeiture. Our plan to alleviate the burden of paying for remediation costs is, and should be, considered as part of this comprehensive programme.
We recognise that the implementation of the Fire Safety Bill will lead to more remediation issues being identified, but there will be occasions when other measures to mitigate the risk are required, rather than extensive remedial works. To suggest that this Bill will unleash hundreds of thousands of costs is incorrect; we have always argued that building owners must take a proportionate, risk based-approach that takes into account the possibility of risk to life in properties, which for most leaseholders is mercifully low. This Bill  applies to all buildings with two or more dwellings; the number of buildings that require substantive remedial works is relatively small, as the vast majority of lower-rise buildings will not require the type of remedial work discussed in the House today.
If noble Lords cast their minds back to the previous stages of the Bill, they will find widespread support for clarifying the fire safety order and legislating to implement the Grenfell inquiry recommendations. In fact, the criticism was that we should have introduced sooner and gone faster. It is therefore getting increasingly difficult to square the sentiment of noble Lords at the beginning of the passage of the Bill with the actions of some Peers now.
Let me point to two examples. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for his candid engagement with me during the passage of the Bill. He tabled amendments in Committee and on Report to, in his words,
“make progress in respect of the recommendations of the first phase of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.”—[Official Report, 17/11/20; col. 1367.]
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, urged the Government at Second Reading to get on with the process of legislating. She said that she supported the direction of travel the Government are taking on the Bill but, in her words,
“the route being taken is too slow.”—[Official Report, 1/10/20; col. 350.]
Tabling and voting for these amendments is inconsistent with pressing the Government to act quicker. Pushing the Fire Safety Bill back to the other place jeopardises it completing its passage before the end of this Session. When I last spoke on the Bill in this House, I said that this Government intend to bring forward regulations to deliver the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase one recommendations before the second anniversary of the inquiry publishing its report, but this is subject to the Bill first gaining Royal Assent. If the Bill is not finalised in this Session, there will be a delay of potentially a year or more in delivering the inquiry’s recommendations.
I will comment in detail on the amendments in lieu in my closing address but, for now, I leave everyone across this House with two key points. First, the Government are unreservedly committed to protecting leaseholders from the costs of remediation. We have announced an unprecedented level of funding in this regard and will publish more details on how it can be accessed.
Secondly, do not let this issue prevent the Fire Safety Bill getting on to the statute book. Pushing the Bill back to the other place this close to the end of the Session risks that, and risks not implementing an important legal clarification that will improve fire safety and help to protect lives. I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

The Lord Bishop of St Albans: Moved by The Lord Bishop of St Albans
At end insert “but do propose Amendment 4J in lieu—
4J: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause— “Prohibition on passing remediation costs on to leaseholders and tenants pending operation of a statutory scheme  (1) The owner of a building may not pass the costs of any remedial work attributable to the provisions of this Act on to leaseholders or tenants of that building. (2) This section has effect only until a statutory scheme is in operation which ensures that leaseholders and tenants of dwellings do not have to pay for remedial work attributable to the provisions of this Act. (3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a leaseholder who is also the owner or part owner of the freehold of the building.””

Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, I give notice of my intention to seek the opinion of the House when the time comes, and declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA.
When there is a crisis, we look to Her Majesty’s Government for radical and rapid action. Ministers are good at calling stakeholders to gather around the table. Just yesterday, in the other place, Minister Oliver Dowden said he was appalled by a situation. He promised Members that they should
“be no doubt that if they cannot act, we will … We will put everything on the table to prevent this from happening … Put simply, we will review everything the Government do to support”
this. He went on:
“We will do whatever it takes.”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/4/21; col. 676.]
Indeed, this situation is so important that it is said that the Prime Minister has decided to rearrange his busy diary and intervene personally to hold a round table to resolve the problem. The trouble is that the radical action being talked about concerns the European Super League, not the hundreds of thousands of people who, at this very moment, are facing desperate dilemmas.
I deeply regret having to come back; I know that it is a nuisance and that people are fed up. But this is the first time in my ministry that I have been stopped on the street in St Albans three times in a week by people saying, “Thank you for what you are doing”. So, I come back hugely reluctantly. I want to see this Bill get on to the statute book, I really do. I hope that we will do all we can, if necessary sitting late, to make sure that when it comes back, if it has to do so, it will get on to the statute book; I do not want to hold it up. This is a good Bill, which seeks to implement a recommendation from the Grenfell inquiry. It is of the utmost importance that our dwellings are safe and people can sleep at night.
However, the consequences of this legislation have a huge impact on leaseholders. The Government, whom I thank very much, have committed £5 billion. I accept that this is unprecedented and a wonderful thing; I want to affirm what the Government have done. However, as things stand, the promised grant and loan schemes are not even operational. I am grateful to the Minister—we have had two meetings in the last week—and I know that they are working as hard and as fast as they can, but the schemes are not operational, there are no dates and no assurance has been given on, for example, whether it will be possible to apply retrospectively.
The moment that the Bill passes, those who would ordinarily be excluded from paying for replacement cladding under the government scheme could, within months, be handed very large bills. Likewise, these bills will be handed to those who should have replacement cladding costs capped at £50 per month under the government scheme. The result, I fear, will be bankruptcies,  enormous mental health strains, and possibly worse. Part—though only part—of the problem is that there have been no assurances to prevent the remediation costs being passed on to leaseholders until the Government’s own scheme is operational. This shows the complexity of what we are facing. I do not pretend that this is easy, or that my proposal will solve everything but, for example, other historical fire safety defects not covered by this scheme still have the potential to bankrupt leaseholders. I remind the House again of the additional financial issues crippling leaseholders: interim fire safety costs and high insurance policy premiums. Just today I received an email about a building where the insurance last year was £11,963 but, in one year, has gone up to £242,400 because the insurers believe that the building is not safe.
Leaseholders face bills of around £6,000 each, to pay within days. This leaves them with a dilemma: sell their lease and take on the debts resulting from negative equity or stay in these leases and face huge debts in the form of remediation bills; or possibly, in some cases, declare bankruptcy. Surely these leaseholders, who went into this as people of aspiration—trying to get their place to live, saving for their deposits—could have had no indication that this was coming. It is one of those dreadful tragedies. Nobody is pointing the finger at the Government or anything like that; it is a dreadful tragedy that could not have been foreseen.
I agree with the Minister that the Fire Safety Bill is not the ideal place to deal with the issue of remediation costs. However, in the absence of an adequate plan or scheme to deal properly and fairly with the issues of remediation and the consequences of the Bill, I simply feel that I have no other option. I believe it is my duty as a Member of this House to stand up when I see this train coming down the track at such huge speed. Without proper protections on leaseholds, the Bill will have far-reaching consequences, negatively affecting thousands of innocent and aspirational individuals. I want to do what I can to prevent that happening. Whether my amendment is the best way to deal with this issue remains an open question; I totally admit that. I have tried in this amendment to the Motion to put the onus on Her Majesty’s Government to bring forward their own scheme rather than find a solely legislative solution to the matter.
One area on which I am unwavering is the principle underlying this amendment of the need to find an alternative way to approach remediation costs, as well as all the other costs now hitting leaseholders. The Government could have extended the current scheme to cover all historical defects and delay remediation costs being passed on to leaseholders until the new scheme is operational. Leaseholders would still be in an unenviable situation if this happened, but it would be a vast improvement on the current offer—which, in my opinion is not acceptable given the costs these individuals face. However, in the time since the Bill was last in the House, nothing has changed. This is why we are left to present broad-stroke solutions to very complex issues. I have argued that the onus in this case has always been on the Government to show leadership in the face of what is so evidently a market  failure. I believe this is an occasion where the Government have not to pick up the bill but somehow to act as a backstop, to enable a solution so that these costs can be shared out and solutions found.
In conclusion, I hope that the Government will seriously take on board what we have said and try to present a way forward on this very real problem. I beg to move.

Lord Russell of Liverpool: My Lords, if Motions A1 and A3 were both agreed to, A3 would replace A1.

Earl of Lytton: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and to speak to Motion A2 in my name. I refer to my vice-presidency of the LGA and my professional involvement with property and construction over many years. I thank the Minister for keeping his door open for discussion; that has been enormously helpful. This amendment is an attempt to find a way out of what I see as an impasse, which, if not dealt with, may cause unquantifiable financial loss, bankruptcy and hardship—as referred to by the right reverend Prelate.
I am indebted to my local fire and rescue service in West Sussex and to the National Fire Chiefs Council, for briefing me on the task ahead of them. I am sure we all agree that they do a fantastic job in keeping us all safe and dealing with risks in a fair and proportionate manner. I am also indebted to Members in another place who have convinced me that the issues I seek to address cannot simply be brushed aside. This is not a challenge to the essential principles of the Bill, which I entirely agree are critical in the light of the Grenfell Tower tragedy.
The problem arises because although the Bill is short and apparently inoffensive, and from a fire safety standpoint is the necessary reaction of any Government to a post-Grenfell inquiry, its means of implementation have much broader and effectively retroactive results. In amending the existing fire safety order’s scope, it extends to any building comprising two or more residential units. It relates not just to cladding but, ultimately, to a much wider range of fire safety issues and to buildings not previously subject to that safety regime.
Noble Lords should bear in mind that there are two lead organisations here: the local authority through its housing functions in respect of houses in multiple occupation and student blocks, and the fire and rescue services, particularly for higher-risk and taller buildings.
Every time there is a fire in a flatted building, it adds to the malaise. When, in the wake of the Grenfell fire, a four-storey block in Worcester Park was destroyed in September 2019, it became clear to me that no Government can risk specifying a cut-off point of safe versus unsafe buildings, and I acknowledge that. So as matters stand, many relatively low-rise buildings, where risks are considered fewer and without a clear threshold, will, for a time, be caught by this long enough to cause serious problems for a significant number of tenants and leaseholders. It is this unconstrained exposure to uncertainty and risk, and the reaction of the markets to it, that has created the problems that we now encounter.
Crucially, there is a significant gap between now and the time when the first 12,000 over-18-metre buildings in England will have been checked, a process which is estimated to be completed by December this year. Then there will be a further period, lasting until some 68,000 further buildings in the 11 to 18 metre height range have been dealt with. During this period, the issue of proportionality and risk will be left to the febrile mortgage and insurance market. I have no doubt that fire safety inspectors will take a fairly strict approach, and indeed would expect them to, at any rate until further guidance is available—which guidance itself might be an outcome of the analysis of the first tranche of inspections of the highest-risk buildings. That delay occurs before one gets to the design and specification of the remediation works by those who might have to satisfy their own professional indemnity conditions, followed then by tendering and ultimately remediation.
The right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in her amendment, endeavour to protect the tenant and leaseholder from the effects of the Bill by saying that they shall not bear the financial burden. I am compelled to express the view that this needs to be taken further: if, as a result, the building owner as freeholder is made liable for something that they in turn cannot afford or cannot be made responsible for, beyond the assets of whatever corporate ownership vehicle holds the freehold or other superior interest, then the liquidation of the holding company and the vesting of the negative-value asset in the hands of insolvency practitioners will do little to get the building remediated. To that extent, the responsible person under the Bill might be a man of straw, and that I see as a weakness in what the Government propose.
To deal with this, one needs a scheme, and the Government have commendably said that they will introduce one to fund remediation, but this suffers from several limitations. First, it applies only to cladding. Secondly, it does not cover all buildings with claddings—even less the other fire safety issues that the Bill might also trigger. Thirdly, I very much doubt that the sum allocated is enough. That said, I am extremely grateful for the government commitment to making £5 billion in funding available, as the Minister has explained.
Apart from properties becoming unsalable, uninsurable and unsuitable for mortgage lending, in some cases they might well be so risky as to be declared unsafe for occupation, pending remediation works. Displaced occupiers will be wondering what it is in the principle of safety and proportionality in relation to their own home, given the nightmare imposition of unimaginable costs and liabilities, that justifies rendering them homeless in addition. Of course, it might well not come to that, and it is my purpose to encourage the Government to ensure that there is a scheme to make certain that it does not. The full extent of the problems may still be yet to come, but I strongly suspect that many of the responsible persons are holding on until this Bill receives Royal Assent before proceeding further.
No Government can simply look on and say that it is not an issue of a very serious kind when people have been seriously threatened in their own homes by negative equity, bankruptcy and worse. With an entire market section being blighted, action is essential. By the same  token, no agency apart from government has the power to procure a change, which ultimately must be by some form of consensus, but which requires regulatory and other powers—or the threat of them—and a degree of arm-twisting involving some very powerful players. There are too many interests and moving parts here, and neither constructors, owners, leaseholders, tenants, insurers or mortgagees can procure effective solutions on their own. It is a systemic failure, in which it is right for the Government to intervene. Indeed, taking these hard decisions is why we have government intervention at all.
By the same token, if there is to be a government safety net of a type that is effective, no leaseholder can simply expect the taxpayer to foot the Bill for all and every fire-safety shortcoming. This is where, particularly in relation to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I differ from that approach. I do not suggest that any of this gets construction warrantee providers, approved inspectors, designers, constructors, housebuilders or building managers off the hook. It will take time to establish liabilities; it is time that those finding themselves in financial fetters do not have at their disposal. That is the problem. Absolutism by government on the one hand and by leaseholders alike will not get the necessary work done or erase the terrible personal tragedies that I fear will result.
The deal is this: for a monthly sum which should be affordable, even if most unwelcome, the capital cost of remediation could be amortised via a loan, funds for early inspection and remediation raised, and works put in hand as soon as possible. This might also fund short-term interim safety measures. The long-term bond so created would, I believe, be saleable. The important thing for affected flat owners is that they could not be charged until a scheme was in place, but the scheme has to be driven initially by government, and that is what this amendment is about.
The current government scheme seems to be based on rolling things out in due course. I appreciate the Minister’s point that he does not wish the Government to be unduly pressurised or under the cosh on this, but the need to get this safety net into place right now is overwhelming. By the end of this coming summer, impossibly large bills are most certainly likely to have dropped onto doormats, prohibition notices and evacuation orders may be in place, and bankruptcies may have grown to a national scandal. I hope that we avoid this, but I for one cannot simply stand by and let that happen unchallenged or by default. I realise that it goes against what some have been asking for, but what is better: to know that you are innocent but that your home remains unsalable and you risk being put in an impossible financial position or rendered homeless, or to know that there is at least some means of funding the remediation so that, in any event, at least some benefit is salvaged out of this debacle?
I know that it also goes against the grain of government to interfere with private legal arrangements and liabilities, but the circumstances are truly exceptional, and the scope of the works is relatively specific. The alternative is a high level of sector-wide economic damage and individual financial destruction.
I know that the Minister is not minded to accept any of the arguments that I have put forward, or my solutions. I make it clear that I do not intend to press this Motion. It is my wish to get further explanations from the Minister. My questions are these. If not this amendment and scheme, then what? If not in this Bill, which triggers it, or even in the building safety Bill, then how? If not now, with the ill-effects so apparent and very likely worse to come, when? Further, if not by government, by whom and by which agency?
If, as I suggest, the objection to broadening things comes from HM Treasury, I ask whether the Government have considered the political and economic enormity of the outcomes if this problem is not addressed now. To that end, could the House be advised what impact assessment has been made of the wholesale value of write-offs and the risk of sectoral market collapse? Lastly, if the Minister feels my concerns are misplaced and things are not as bad as I have suggested they might be, surely then the risk of exposure for the taxpayer is of itself a stopgap, a confidence-building measure, rather than a serious run on the Exchequer.
All areas of activity carry some risks that are considered acceptable, and there is no zero-risk existence to be had anywhere. We allow vintage bangers on our roads and service conduits that are more than 100 years old, permit antique furniture containing horsehair possibly from anthrax-infected animals, cherish Tudor box-frame houses with no foundations to speak of, accept asbestos in buildings according to practical risk, and occupy a Parliament building that is a known hazard in waiting. Total risk aversion is not a viable way forward.
However, the Bill, having raised the bar, now needs to be accompanied by safety nets, back-stops and proportionality in what follows. They must be put in place forthwith or parliamentarians will be faced with questions as to how the danger from fire has become a factor that puts families at serious peril, if not actually out of their homes. These are hard decisions that cannot be avoided, and they are ones that any Government must address.

Baroness Pinnock: My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Kirklees Council.
This has so far been a very good debate, with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, using his expertise to detail the problems and suggest solutions to them since, as he says, they have yet to be resolved and need to be resolved, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans with his passionate exposé of the real difficulties facing individuals in this position.
We know that a property purchase is the largest single financial commitment that the majority of us ever make, yet the guarantees, the warranties and even buildings insurance for leaseholders fail to provide anything approaching adequate provision for those who find themselves living in a home where building regulations have been openly and plainly breached. Those living through this construction crisis and cladding scandal exposed by the awful tragedy of Grenfell are left with nowhere to find redress for the inexcusable failings of the construction companies.
That is in stark contrast to manufacturers of, for example, cars and white goods; where faults are discovered, even where the goods are out of warranty, the manufacturers call them in and make the repairs at their expense. What a difference with the construction industry, where only some of those involved have made any provision for remediation works—the bare minimum that they feel they can get away with. The total estimated cost of remediation so far is £16 billion. The Government are expecting construction companies to pay £200 million a year towards the remediation costs. With the government-funded scheme, that leaves a full £9 billion to fall on those who, throughout, are the innocent victims.
The purpose of the amendments in my name and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans is to extend the principle already agreed by the Government: that this serious problem can be successfully fixed only with up-front funding from the Government that can then be recouped from developers, construction firms and manufacturers.
Throughout this debate I have sought to draw the attention of the House to the real and serious consequences for the individual leaseholders and tenants. Take Alison, who has recently had a bill for £28,000. That is just her share of the costs of putting right the construction errors in her block. It is not for cladding removal; the other construction failings are not covered by the scheme that the Government have introduced, but they still have to be remedied. How is that bill to be paid? She carefully budgeted for the costs of her mortgage and the service charges but has no means of raising the finance needed. Where on earth can she turn to save her home?
Another flat owner has written to me, as they apparently have to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, about the further consequences of the scandal. They told me about their buildings insurance premium, and it is so shocking that it is worth sharing again. The insurance premium for their block was just £11,963 last year but that has rocketed to £242,400. How on earth can people living in that block of flats have budgeted for that sort of exponential rise in their insurance premiums? Further, how on earth can they have budgeted or indeed find any finance to pay the bill, which they expect within a week, of £6,000 for each and every one of them without the Government doing what Governments can and should do, which is to protect individuals from situations where they are the innocent victims?
As a consequence of the complete lack of effective government action, bankruptcy has been the only route out of this scandal for many already, while others are on the brink of choosing that as the only option left. Yet these are the very people who have done everything right and nothing wrong. Some are even those who have been supported by the Government through the Help to Buy offer. What are the options after bankruptcy, when everything that you have worked for has been taken away? For those without dependants, the situation is very difficult. They become homeless through no fault of their own. It cannot be right that the Government are allowing this to happen.
I do not envy the Minister his task today as he seeks to defend the indefensible. I feel sure that he will point to the building safety Bill as the cure-all for the failings of the construction sector, but that Bill has yet to start its deliberations so its potential remedies will come far too late for those caught up in this crisis.
The Minister has argued that the Fire Safety Bill will fall if agreement is not reached. He argues for the need to act, but he fails to say at what cost and indeed at whose cost. I thank him for reminding me of my words at Second Reading but he has been a bit selective. I have always said throughout the passage of the Bill that leaseholders must not be asked to pay. Yes, across the House we support the Bill, but equally its consequences need to be thought through as well. The Government constantly state that they are helping leaseholders; indeed the Minister has repeated that today, but he failed then to say that that is unfortunately at a minimal level and the extent of the help is not adequate.
I have asked the cladding groups whether they would suffer if the Bill fell. Their view was unanimous. They concluded that they would be no worse off if it fell and they say that if it does not pass, to some extent it provides them with precious time to get the issue properly addressed.
Yesterday, the Government announced that they would change the law to refund investors in the London Capital & Finance mini-bond scheme. The Government have accepted that the FCA failed to regulate the firm properly. The similarities with this construction scandal are many. Innocent victims are set to lose out due to the failure of regulatory control. However, in the case of the cladding scandal, innocent victims are set to lose everything they own and have worked hard for. That is not right.
The amendment in my name seeks to put right this awful wrong and to establish the rollcall of statistics of bankruptcy, homelessness, mental ill-health and worse, of relationships broken and careers lost. Hundreds of thousands of individuals and families are watching and waiting for the decision of this House. They are willing us on to help find a fair and just solution to a problem that is not in any way of their making. Yet they are the ones who are being asked to pay the price.
If the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans wishes to divide the House, the Liberal Democrat Benches will fully support him. If, however, he chooses not to do so, then I will wish to test the opinion of the House.

Baroness Fookes: My Lords, the following Members in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, and the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Cormack. I will call them in that order. First, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.

Baroness Fox of Buckley: My Lords, it is with some reluctance, especially at this late stage of the Bill, that I have decided to speak in support of these amendments. I do not want unnecessarily to delay legislation that aims to make homes safer and I am very sensitive about the dangers of undemocratic overreach and defying an elected Chamber. However,  I speak because there is an urgent risk that rather than this well-intentioned, important Bill being remembered as a law that will save lives by tackling the fire safety defects at the heart of the Grenfell tragedy, instead, if passed unamended, it will become known as the Bill that ruins lives and makes tens of thousands bankrupt and homeless, their homes transformed from places of safety to sites of anxiety, stress and penury.
I have not spoken on the Bill previously but have followed the debates carefully. I have heard eloquent, passionate, evidence-based and constructive interventions from noble Lords on all sides of the House patiently explaining to the Government how the Bill, unintentionally no doubt, has weaponised fire safety measures and targeted not developers, freeholders, cladding manufacturers or builders but the most blameless constituents in all this—leaseholding home owners. They will pay horrendous, mind-boggling amounts of money to foot remediation costs to cover defects in order to make their homes safe when they have purchased those flats in good faith.
I assumed that the Government were listening and that they understood, after all this—Ministers here and elsewhere have given lots of public assurances—that leaseholders would not become the fall guys. I believed them. I was pleased to welcome the £5 billion long-term loan scheme and the £50-a-month cap on repayments. That reassured me. But I am speaking today in desperation because I am utterly shocked to discover that this government scheme is not yet operational and that no date is available for when it will be. Yet, at the very moment that the Bill comes into force, if unamended, leaseholders will be landed with even more astronomical bills and demands to pay within days or weeks. That is on top of the immiseration already occurring, caused by ensuing costs.
The Government will not even clarify if they will allow retrospective acquisition to the scheme for those already handed extortionate bills, or the debts being accrued for historic health and safety defects. This feels particularly mean-spirited and, if I may say so, tone deaf. We are being urged to fast-track the Bill, but the Government could fast-track the scheme. Actually, this discussion is about more than money; it is about moral leadership. If the Grenfell tragedy has revealed institutional failures at multiple levels and the failure of those in authority to listen to the warnings of tenants—those on-the-ground concerns were contemptuously dismissed, as we know—this leaseholder tragedy feels similarly related to institutional intransigence. It is box-ticking safety without nuance. It is, or seems to be, an example of a refusal to listen to the voices of leaseholders and their advocates here and in the other place, who are pleading with the Government to hear their warnings of the disastrous consequences for home owners if this legislation is passed unamended.
I should declare an interest as a leaseholder of a local authority maisonette in Haringey. My block of flats had a serious fire in the middle of the first lockdown. Thank God, no one was hurt but 22 families were evacuated. The fire ripped through the roof. Our possessions and homes were ruined by extensive water  damage and smoke. One year on, we leaseholders are still effectively homeless. We have been told that we will not be returning home until spring 2022—two years after the fire. To be honest, it has been heartbreaking but I am not here for noble Lords’ sympathy but to tell them that one of the worst aspects of the whole experience has been that, despite lots of emails and phone calls, queries to the leaseholders’ team at the council go unanswered. The main communications that we have received from it have been demands for council tax and service charges, even though my temporary accommodation is not in Haringey. While I am not an expert in fire safety, I have some insider knowledge of how it feels to be ignored and treated shoddily as a leaseholder.
However, I know that I am privileged and it is lucky that I am not facing the problems my fellow leaseholders now have with the cladding issue. Can we just remember who those leaseholders are? They are friends and colleagues of mine who are predominantly not wealthy and often can get on the housing ladder only by becoming a leaseholder, as I did 20 years ago. Some 56% of them are first-time buyers—the very people the Government are so keen to encourage, and who are commended for doing so.
The stories of leaseholders who are trapped and crippled by building-safety debt are devastating. For example, there are those in Waterside Park who are now paying £650 a month for waking-watch patrols alone. Who lives in Waterside Park? Many are key workers, pandemic front-line workers in east London earning less than £2,000 a month. They now face additional remediation costs estimated at £75,000. Or can one imagine being those hard-working householders in Brindley House, Birmingham whose service charges have risen from £1,300 a year in 2017 to £4,550 today, and whose remediation costs are £45,000 for a one-bedroomed flat and £78,729 for a two-bedroomed property?
I was particularly moved by a letter from a vicar and his wife about the plight of their 30 year-old son, his wife and two year-old disabled grandchild. The son earns less than £25,000 a year, so he signed up for the Government’s Help to Buy scheme and his parents drew significantly on their pension to help him. The young man and his family now face homelessness and hopelessness through no fault of their own. His desperate parents wrote, asking who will take moral responsibility for what they call
“life-changing financial and emotional catastrophe”?
The Minister might be interested to hear that they say:
“We, as previously Conservative voters, feel betrayed by this Government who have, after all, promoted home ownership”.
Indeed, the Government have, and I commend them for it. Only yesterday the Conservative Party put out this advert:
“Today we launch our scheme to back 95% mortgages, helping first-time buyers and homeowners, turning generation rent into generation buy.”
So why then today would we pass this piece of legislation unamended which is going to turn generation leaseholder into generation bankrupt?
I commend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their perseverance in  pushing this issue. I do not think that they are well-known trouble-makers or going out of their way to be sectarian—it is because this matters. The amendments would not solve every problem and leaseholders would still shoulder ongoing safety costs, but at least it would ease some of the financial burden. It would also give the Government some breathing space to resolve the myriad other challenges without ruining people.
No one here pretends that these issues are easy to solve. Costs are spiralling; even the Government’s estimated remedial costs of £9,000 per leaseholder looks naive when the real figures of tens of thousands are the reality. Sadly, any new regulation creates new layers of bureaucracy; there are consultants all over this. Then there is the risk aversion, leading to sky-high insurance premiums, a reluctance to sign off EWS1 forms and lenders’ reluctance to accept them.
I know that there is a lot to tackle, but I want to say to the Government, “You aren’t alone”. This is not a blame game or a party-political issue; it is a case maybe of unintended market failure, and it requires the sort of collective state-backed intervention that we have seen from this Government with issues such as furlough. It needs a bailout or safety net, and the Government are more than capable of doing that. The Government have allies here to come up with creative solutions; here and in the other place, they have heard some fantastic ideas and ways of solving this. If you talk to the rank and file leaseholder groups, they are full of innovative policies that can solve this. But to access those ideas, the Government have to talk to people and to listen. I hope that the Minister listens today and accepts this amendment. I know that the Government mean well, but they are not doing well.

Lord Newby: My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as a leaseholder in a block of flats that faces major fire and remediation works.
When we last debated this Bill, I teased the Minister by suggesting that he was behaving like Sir Humphrey in the TV series “Yes, Minister”, by coming up with a series of bureaucratic reasons for not taking any action. After the debate, I was a bit worried that I might have been a bit unfair to him, so I reread his speech just to make sure. I fear that, if anything, I had underestimated the extent to which the Government were hiding behind stock bureaucratic arguments for not doing what they know is required to clear up the scandal. He has repeated some of those arguments today.
Last time around, the Minister, as he has today, accepted that something more was needed. Last time he said that it was
“unacceptable for leaseholders to have to worry about the cost of fixing historic building safety defects.”
He also acknowledged that the Government believed that
“building owners and industry should make buildings safe without passing on costs to leaseholders.”
So far, so good. But when it came to actually dealing with removing that worry, in his response to the amendments from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and my noble friend Lady Pinnock, at great length and somewhat repetitiously he explained why the Government had no plans to fix the problem.
The reasons were as follows. First, the Minister said,
“it would be impractical and confusing to include remediation measures in the Bill.”
Well, it would not be confusing if they were clear. Secondly, he said that it was too soon to include comprehensive measures in the Bill. He said that it was
“important to ensure that the practical implications of any legislation are properly worked through, rather than being rushed”.
Well, we would not want the Government to rush to solve the problems of people who are being forced into bankruptcy today, would we?
Thirdly, the Minister said that the amendment was “too narrow” and did not
“take into account remedial works that arise outside the fire risk assessment process”.
He said that the amendment would go beyond “focusing on service charges”.
Fourthly, the Minister said that the amendment was not detailed enough
“and would require extensive drafting of primary legislation”.
It is not that this Government or any other Government fail to know how to draft extensively—look at the length of the statute book. Fifthly, he said that it would delay the implementation of the Bill, which would be highly regrettable. The Minister has spoken at great length about the costs of delay today but, as my noble friend Lady Pinnock pointed out, it would be highly regrettable to the Government but not to people who are going bankrupt, because this Bill does nothing for them.
Sixthly, the Minister said that loose drafting would lead to litigation. How terrible. Seventhly, he said
“the amendments do not reflect the complexity involved in apportioning liability for remedial defects.”—[Official Report, 17/3/21; cols. 323-26.]
Perhaps the amendments did not but, in my experience, owners of blocks of flats are pretty good when it comes to apportioning liability for costs, because we somehow seem to get that job done every year when we get our service charges. Finally, he said that it would be “self-defeating” as landlords could decide simply to walk away.
Sir Humphrey would have been very proud of the Minister’s performance, but leaseholders listening to his arguments would have realised that they amounted to one depressing fact: the Government were not prepared to fashion a legislative response which dealt with their legitimate concerns. In effect, they were simply saying that they would like to resolve the matter but it was too difficult. There was no willingness on the part of the Minister to commission civil servants to do the work necessary to find a workable solution. Some three and three-quarter years after Grenfell, the Government are completely failing to relieve leaseholders of their concerns and failing to find a way in which to require building owners and contractors to make buildings safe without passing on the costs.
The amendments before us today are a further attempt to move the Government towards meeting what they say are their desired outcomes. They have shown no will to do so of their own volition and it therefore falls to your Lordships’ House to insist again that they do the right and decent thing.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the National Housing Federation, the representative body of housing associations in England. The fact that these issues are before the House again demonstrates the enormous concern that blameless leaseholders should be protected from suffering the costs of those building safety remediation works that have come to light since the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower almost four years ago. Like others, I pay tribute to the commitment and tenacity of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for keeping the Government’s feet to the fire.
Housing associations have worked tirelessly since 2017 to uncover and put right the urgent building safety issues with which since the Grenfell tragedy we are now all too familiar. The safety of their residents is an absolute and immovable priority for the housing association sector. They are also acutely aware of the stress and heartache that leaseholders have experienced and have pursued every avenue available to them to ensure that those responsible, the developers of these buildings, pay for their mistakes. The funds that the Government have already made available for building safety works have a very important part to play in tackling this crisis, but they are by no means a complete solution. It is just not acceptable that under the established scheme some costs will still fall to leaseholders.
I have said before, in early discussions on the Bill, and I stress again today, that social housing providers cannot access this funding for remedial works on properties where tenants live. The funding applies only to leaseholders. That means quite simply that these charitable organisations, which do not make a profit and are set up with the primary purpose of housing people on lower incomes, are facing an enormous bill to set right errors not of their own making—a bill that, at a modest estimate, will exceed £10 billion.
I hope the Minister will agree that, over the past year, housing associations have played a vital role in communities up and down the country. They have been at the forefront of both the local and the national response to the coronavirus pandemic. Not only have they provided safe and secure homes for their residents, at a time when home has never been more important to us, but they have delivered services that have helped to keep people’s heads above water over these most harrowing months. Their role as community anchors will be ever more important in the months and years to come, because many of their residents are likely to suffer the social and economic fallout from the pandemic.
On top of this, the housing association sector is central to our efforts to beat the country’s housing crisis, and to meeting our net zero ambitions. It is the driving force behind building thousands of new sustainable homes each year, as well as making existing properties greener. Bluntly, this work will be far harder to deliver if there is not the funding to cover building safety costs. Safety must be a top priority, so resources will have to be diverted away from improving residents’ properties, providing community services, building new homes and tackling the climate crisis. So can the  Minister please tell the House what assessment his department has made of the impact that the remediation costs for tenanted properties will have on the wider work of the housing association sector?
Manufacturers, developers and those responsible for building these properties created this crisis, and they should pick up the bill. It is clear that there is a huge amount of support among Members of the other place for this to happen, but that will take work, and some time, to achieve. The only logical immediate answer to this intractable problem is for the Government to provide up-front funding for all remedial works, and to recoup the cost to the taxpayer later by establishing developers’ liabilities.
I urge the Minister to confirm today that the Government will move to protect leaseholders, social housing tenants and social housing providers by making funding available up front for this essential work to be done.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans will have heard the strong support across the House for his amendment. He said at the beginning of his remarks that he intended to press the matter, and I would strongly encourage him to do so. It looks to me as if he will have a commanding majority across the House.
The Minister’s speech was very odd. Indeed, it was so odd that I cannot think that he actually wrote his own speech. It must have been written by some political adviser in his department, who just put together a set of remarks that he thought would basically tell the House of Lords to get lost. That was the gravamen of his argument, presumably hoping that, the third time around, we would not press this—indeed, that we would not even get into the arguments.
The Minister said—I noted it down carefully—that the proposal in the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans was “inappropriate and unworkable”. I was waiting for him to describe to the House why it was inappropriate and unworkable, but he did not. He said that he would not comment in detail at the beginning, but would do so at the end. That is not much use to us, because the debate takes place before his closing remarks, not afterwards, and we have no means of replying to them. That argument is clearly of no account, unless the Minister has such compelling arguments against the right reverend Prelate that, on hearing them, we will be completely silenced.
When we read the amendment, it is impossible to see how it could be described as inappropriate and unworkable. The right reverend Prelate proposes, first, that the costs may not be passed on to leaseholders or tenants—an argument in its absolute state, which the Minister has objected to, and I understand his arguments. However, the crucial part of the amendment is subsection (2) of the proposed new clause:
“This section has effect only until a statutory scheme is in operation which ensures that leaseholders and tenants of dwellings do not have to pay for remedial work attributable to the provisions of this Act.”
What is inappropriate and unworkable about that? The right reverend Prelate proposes simply that the Government’s own scheme, which one assumes will not be inappropriate or unworkable, must be before  Parliament and subject to consideration before people are faced with costs—unless I have missed something in the arguments. The right reverend Prelate is nodding in agreement, and the Minister has not said anything to the contrary.
By definition, that cannot be inappropriate and unworkable, because we are talking about the Government’s own scheme. All that the right reverend Prelate seeks to do, which it is absolutely within the role of a revising Chamber to insist on, is that leaseholders should not be subject to these costs, which could bankrupt them and cause them enormous distress, being simply unmanageable, until there is a scheme. The scheme must have been presented and agreed before they face these costs.
We have heard harrowing stories from people with individual and personal cases at stake, but also, as the right reverend Prelate so rightly says, there are potentially—we are not quite sure what the numbers are—hundreds of thousands of people affected. What impact will that have? It is not unreasonable for this House to insist that before leaseholders are faced with those costs, we must know what the scheme is and it has been subject to proper consideration.
What makes it all even odder is that the Government themselves say that that is their intention. When the matter last came before the House of Commons, the Minister responsible, Christopher Pincher, said:
“We have been working hard to ensure that those with broader shoulders and those that should pay do pay.”
That is precisely the principle we are all seeking to establish. He continued:
“That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced at the Budget that there will be a levy on tall buildings and a tax on the sector. We do not want to absolve the industry of its responsibility. We are finalising how the levy will be calculated and the Treasury is leading on the development of the tax. Of course we want to ensure that it works effectively, and that small and medium-sized developers are not unfairly disadvantaged. We want to get it right and we want to get it done as quickly as we can … We will bring forward as soon as we possibly can the workings of the financial support scheme that we announced at the Budget that will ensure that leaseholders in buildings below 18 metres pay no more than £50 a month.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/21; col. 707.]
Those commitments and statements by the Minister are completely consistent with the proposal of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, which simply says that the scheme must be ready, approved and operable before leaseholders pay any costs. The Minister’s substantive argument—that the right reverend Prelate’s proposal is inappropriate and unworkable—is clearly nonsensical and wrong.
The Minister’s other argument was that we were somehow delaying matters. The House of Commons last debated this issue on Monday 22 March. The date today is 20 April, a month later. The reason for the delay in considering this Bill has nothing to do with your Lordships, nothing to do with the leaseholders, nothing to do with the right reverend Prelate, and everything to do with the Government.
Indeed, on the same day as the House of Commons considered our amendments to the Fire Safety Bill, they also considered our amendments to the Trade Bill. Those of your Lordships who multitask—some of us do more than one Bill at a time—will know that  the amendments to the Trade Bill were dealt with in your Lordships’ House within a matter of days. It was, I think, three or four days later, because it was still the twenty-something of March when we dealt with them. The reason why we have not considered this matter until 20 April, very close to the end of the Session, has nothing whatever to do with your Lordships, and everything to do with the Government.
We still have time between now and the end of the Session. As the right reverend Prelate so rightly said, if the Prime Minister can spring into such dramatic action in response to developments in the Football League, he and the Government can certainly get their act together to consider and put forward proper proposals in respect of a scheme. Much more pertinently, if they say that the full resources of the Government, drafting and all that, are not available, because the parliamentary draftsmen are on holiday or whatever and so cannot do it—the noble Lord, Lord Newby, could read out more “Yes Minister” excerpts on this—all he needs to do is to accept the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. That is what we are urging him to do. It would give him the time to do it, because its key provision is that leaseholders will not be faced with these charges until the statutory scheme is in operation, so he will have the time that he needs.
However, it is not just that the reason for the delay is the Government and not this House; we are dealing with a situation that is nearly four years old. It is not as if Grenfell happened a few months ago, we are still trying to estimate what the impacts were, and we are being rushed into legislation and the design of a scheme. It has been four years, and there is a whole public inquiry, the first stage of which has already reported. Again, the reason for the delay in this respect has nothing to do with the leaseholders, nothing to do with this House and everything to do with the Government.
What was the special adviser who wrote the Minister’s speech actually seeking to do? I think it is pretty clear, because most of us here are seasoned politicians. They were seeking to see that the Fire Safety Bill becomes law before the impact on the leaseholders is fully known. We need to get to the heart of what is happening here. Obviously, in response to the urgent and compelling safety crisis that we face, there had to be changes in the safety regulations. More precisely, we had to see that the existing safety regulations were actually enforced. That is what we are really talking about as the fundamental point of principle here.
The Government do not want leaseholders, who may face large bills of potentially tens of thousands of pounds and who in many cases may not be covered by the schemes, which are only in outline at the moment in their descriptions, to be faced with those costs or any knowledge of what they might be before the Bill becomes law. However, that is all the more reason why Parliament should not be prepared to play the Government’s game, because this is not a political game or a script of “Yes Minister”; these are the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who face bills of tens of thousands of pounds. It is perfectly reasonable that this House and the House of Commons should at least know what the schemes are, in respect of which  people are going to have to pay these sums, and should have given their assent to them before they become law.
The Minister said that the right reverend Prelate’s proposal was inappropriate and unworkable. There is nothing inappropriate and unworkable whatever about ensuring that a statutory scheme must be in operation before leaseholders face bills that could, as I say, run into tens of thousands of pounds. The only reason for the delay in the past and now is because of the Government. This could all be sorted out in the next few days, before the end of this Session, if there is a will to move.
For that reason, I strongly urge the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, on behalf of hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens who have a right to expect fair play from Parliament, to press this amendment to a vote.

Lord Cormack: My Lords, having heard so much this afternoon, I do not think that I really wish to add to the powerful arguments that have been advanced.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: My Lords, first, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, a non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd and chair of the Heart of Medway Housing Association.
It is most disappointing that we are back here again, because the Government have neither listened to nor recognised the plight of the people trapped in their homes. For me, that is extremely disappointing. I have spoken to a number of the innocent victims over recent weeks. Think of the stress, worry, concern, costs and lives on hold. For many, there is no end in sight. It is not good enough, and we must ask the other place to think again on this issue. We must stand with the innocent victims, the leaseholders and the tenants. It is a disgraceful, monumental scandal, and the Government cannot be let off the hook today. We hear lots from the Government about levelling up; it is one of their new phrases that we have heard over the last year. What about some levelling up for the victims of the cladding scandal? That is what we need to hear today.
You buy your home—often your first home—you pay your mortgage, you pay your taxes, you play by the rules, you do the right thing, and you are a good citizen. What you want is your Government to stand with you, to be by your side, to stand up for you and to make those responsible for this scandal put it right. That is what they want today: for those who are responsible, not the innocent victims, to put this right—be that the companies who built these defective properties, the people who signed the buildings off as safe when they were not, or those who provided the insurance guarantees that they would put right anything that went wrong. That is why we on these Benches very much support Amendment A1 in the name of the right reverend Prelate, and we will be in the Lobbies with him when he, I hope, divides the House.
For me, it is clear, simple, effective and time limited. If the Government’s word means anything, they should support the amendment too. The Motion would prevent the owner of a building from passing on any costs of remedial work and, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said, remains in force only until we have the statutory scheme in place, which of course will then deal with the issue of costs and the scandal. It would provide welcome relief and respite. It would show that there is a way out of this nightmare. It would show that the Government are with the victims of this scandal, who are the innocent people here.
The Government highlighted the weakness of their own utterly ridiculous position. The Government control the other place. They have a majority of 80. We have heard that they have held this up for a month; they could have discussed it weeks ago. We could have discussed it in this House. Now they tell us that the Bill is at risk if we carry on. That is just not acceptable; it is just not good enough. The only way the Bill will fall is if the Government choose to let it fall and do nothing about that. The hold-up is purely caused by the Prime Minister and the Government deciding that they just do not want to go here. That is what the problem is.
Like the right reverend Prelate, I was also pleased to hear about the urgent action that the Government were taking: the summit at No. 10, the calls that it will not happen and the demands for urgent action. But, of course, as the right reverend Prelate said, that was about the European Super League. If we can have a summit for the Super League, why can we not have a summit for the insurance companies in No. 10 this week to ask what they are doing? Why can there not be a summit for the building companies this week in No. 10? Why can there not be a summit for the victims in No. 10 this week? Apparently, if it is the Super League, everybody can come in straightaway. It is just not good enough.
We need these summits. We need the Government to actually act and stand by victims. If the fate of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur are a matter of the gravest concern for No. 10, surely the victims should be as well. It is just not good enough. I hope that the noble Lord will go back to the Prime Minister and tell him how angry this House is with where we find ourselves today.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, powerfully set out the Government’s failure to do this and how wrong they are. There is no good reason at all for not acting today. The Government should support this amendment, because it is really well drafted and takes us forward. The Government have made pledges and promises to the victims, and they will have to honour them.
I had not read the words of Chris Pincher, but when my noble friend Lord Adonis read them out, I thought, “That is the Motion that we have here”. He wants to have a statutory scheme set up, for no one to pay anything, to make sure that the scheme is in place and to protect the victims. That is what the Motion before the House today would do, so I just do not understand why the Government are not supporting it.
I very much hope that the right reverend Prelate will divide the House when we get to that point if the noble Lord will not accept the Motion, because it really is just not good enough. The Government will have to act and protect the victims.

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, it has been an interesting debate, to put it mildly. I did not think we would be invoking the spirit of the European Super League quite so much, but I have to say I stand with noble Lords in being utterly opposed to the proposals, including from the club that I support.
The idea that we are unleashing a torrent of issues for leaseholders as a result of the Fire Safety Bill—one of the points the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, made—is overstated. That is not going to happen. We recognise that building owners will have to take a proportionate, risk-based approach that takes into account the true possibility of risk to life in properties. Life risk is mercifully low, as I said in my opening remarks.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that the solution has been outlined by the Government. Noble Lords can query the scope, but the solution will always involve three basic elements: a level of grant funding—we have had the ACM fund of some £600 million and the building safety fund of £1 billion; some kind of financing scheme that provides a loan facility to pay for these works; and taxation or levies. The Government are introducing all three elements, and that is ultimately the only solution that can be offered. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that the solution in all those areas does not need to be statutory—in fact, in order to be timely, it cannot be statutory. The grant funding exists, and we will be publishing further details of the financing scheme very shortly. The Treasury’s lead is needed on taxation and levies, as the noble Lord will know.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, it would be nice to put more money on the table, but over £5 billion, as I am sure she recognises, is a considerable sum. Leasehold properties in those buildings are protected. We know that a number of housing associations are applying to the building safety fund. I recognise that we could go further and protect the full remediation costs of those buildings, but it is nevertheless the case that many housing associations are applying for funds for the removal of unsafe cladding. In addition, a very generous affordable housing programme of some £12.5 billion has been announced, which housing associations can access.
By way of clarification to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the building safety fund does exist and the money is being accessed. It is clear that the additional money the Government have announced will be added to that fund. We are in danger of running out of money, frankly, in a matter of months, without the additional amounts committed by the Government. The other things I mentioned will happen, but none of them requires statute to implement, so it is simply not the case that a statutory solution is the only way forward.
I want to reiterate why these amendments, which I believe are unworkable and impractical, should be rejected.. I do not have the benefit of political advisers  as a Lords Minister. I am always happy with extra help in drafting my speeches, but I do not have a special adviser helping me in this regard. I do not think the amendments deliver the solution; all they do is put the legislation at risk. We have had the Easter Recess, which is one of the reasons we are now short of time.
As noble Lords have heard before now, it is impractical and confusing to amend the fire safety order to include this issue. The main aim of the fire safety order is to ensure public safety by reducing the risk to life from fire. This is done through responsible persons complying with their duties and regularly reviewing their fire risk assessment to identify and put in place appropriate fire precautions. These amendments do not include measures that provide public safety or set out how the responsible person should reduce the risk to harm from fire. Instead, they cover the relationship, including financial obligations and liabilities, between freeholder and leaseholder. These matters do not sit naturally with the fire safety order, as some noble Lords have admitted.
In his amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, wants to add further protections to leaseholders by insisting that building owners seek government support through our grant or financing schemes before passing costs on to leaseholders. Noble Lords will note that a similar provision already exists in our draft Building Safety Bill in Clause 89(17P), which places obligations on the landlord to deduct from leaseholder charges any funding received. We are adding to this clause with the purpose of ensuring that building owners must explore other cost-recovery mechanisms before passing costs on to leaseholders.
In addition to this proposed legislative protection, the existing building safety fund application process already requires building owners to demonstrate that they have already explored other cost-recovery avenues as a condition of government funding. Including this sort of provision in the Building Safety Bill removes a clear practical difficulty in this clause. By extending the requirement to explore alternative funding sources before approaching leaseholders to all building safety risks, leaseholders will now have to work out which costs are directly attributable to the provisions of the fire safety order and which are not. In the interim, building owners should already be accessing all the government support available to remediate unsafe cladding, and we are supporting them through this process.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for his engagement over the last few weeks, but I am afraid that his amendment will not work either. It would orphan liability. We have looking to assign liability to freeholders or orphan liability of works until such times as a statutory scheme is in place that pays for the work directly attributable to this Bill. I have already talked about the difficulties of defining which works might be directly attributable to the Fire Safety Bill provisions and which might not.
Some of the works that may be required will be low cost, where anyone would reasonably expect leaseholders to pay. Does the right reverend Prelate really want to stop the passing on of relatively minor costs, such as for a new smoke alarm? The amendment does not differentiate between the costs of the work which  could lead to delays in important minor works. He is talking about stopping something even as minor as putting in a smoke alarm as a consequence of the amendment. No taxpayer scheme for such minor works would be forthcoming, and we would reach an entirely avoidable impasse.
The amendment does not take into account safety defects that are identified outside the fire safety risk process—for example, necessary works brought into scope as a result of another incident. In such cases, this will not prevent costs being passed on, and the amendment will not, therefore, achieve what the right reverend Prelate intends. Since this amendment is not sufficiently detailed and will require extensive drafting of primary legislation, it would continue to delay the implementation of the Fire Safety Bill and the important reforms that it intends to carry out.
We also recognise that there could be protracted legal action from building owners to claim for costs they feel they are entitled to pursue from leaseholders. Stating in legislation what the landlord can and cannot recover from the leaseholders, and when, could contradict the provisions set out in the contractual terms of a lease. This would affect the Government and, to that extent, taxpayers. The amendment should ultimately be self-defeating as the pace and progress of all fire safety works would be stalled, leaving leaseholders still in an invidious position.
I must admit that I had a strong sense of déjà vu when reading the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. The House will remember that an almost identical amendment was laid during the previous stage of this Bill and rejected by the Commons. As with the previous amendment, it would orphan liability and leave leaseholders no better off, with no clear route for buildings to be remediated, without a clear cost recovery mechanism. Noble Lords will also remember that the scope of this amendment is extremely broad; it is applicable to not just external walls but all and every defect regardless of whether it has been caused by wear and tear. This is neither proportionate nor appropriate. It is certainly not the best use of taxpayers’ money.
The Government are focused on supporting the Grenfell Tower public inquiry to uncover the full truth that led to the fire and ensure that lessons are learned from this national tragedy. This is in parallel with ongoing work to make homes safer, thoroughly reform the entire regulatory system and provide redress to the community and to leaseholders. The Government are also providing a globally unprecedented package, in excess of £5 billion—this is not a minimal sum; £5.1 billion is a substantial amount—to pay to make homes safer from unsafe cladding. It is unclear what a further independent inquiry would deliver.
I ask that noble Lords exercise sound judgment, listen to the will of the democratically elected other place and recognise that, while this amendment and others may be based on good intentions, it is not appropriate or a means to solve very complex problems. This is the wrong place for this kind of legislation, and in any case the amendment is likely to be ineffective  and possibly risky. It is a big risk; in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, I say that the risk of litigation is not something to pooh-pooh, because the risk is not only that is it an additional cost that leaseholders potentially face paying but that the remediation will not be carried out. I must emphasise once again that all the solutions put forward will in no way solve this problem. The Government certainly cannot support them.
I finish by reminding noble Lords that the Government have provided an unprecedented level of support for leaseholders, in excess of £5 billion. Noble Lords have a choice; it involves supporting getting this highly important Bill on to the statute book and not delaying its implementation any further, which will allow the Grenfell recommendations to be implemented and help make homes safer.

Lord Duncan of Springbank: I have received a single request to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we are talking about three different amendments; I am focusing on that from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. In so far as I could tell, the detail of the Minister’s objection to the right reverend Prelate’s amendment was that further delay could be caused by uncertainty over the attribution of costs and that he objected to the amendment’s requirement that the scheme be statutory. Further delay depends on how long it takes the Government to come forward with their scheme; they are in complete control of the timescale. On the statutory scheme, to foster peace and good will between the right reverend Prelate and the Government, I suggest that “statutory” be replaced by “government” scheme—which need not necessarily be statutory, for the reasons the Minister gave. Would he be prepared to entertain this?

Lord Greenhalgh: I am very new to this place but, as I have tried to highlight, I do not believe that the solution in large part involves statute. The noble Lord is asking for a further commitment that is really about putting more government money up front to pay for the significant costs faced by leaseholders. It would not be helpful to amend the amendment by removing that word, because I do not think we could accept the amendment in any way whatever. We have set out that we want to focus on the remediation of unsafe cladding because cladding on the outside of buildings is the major fire accelerant. That is what we will focus on and we are putting forward over £5 billion to do precisely that—a significant, globally unprecedented amount. I do not think amending that one word moves us any further forward.

Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, I am hugely grateful for the extraordinary range of speeches made today. I acknowledge what Her Majesty’s Government have done; I take the point that this is unprecedented and a major contribution towards trying to sort out this very difficult problem. The Minister knows that I have said on many occasions that I am terribly naive about all this. I was hoping Her Majesty’s Government would help solve it because I am just an  amateur paddling around in the shallows. I am hugely grateful to people such as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who is a real expert in this area.
I still believe that my amendment is a practical, helpful and just way forward which is in the spirit of what Her Majesty’s Government want and have committed to. I was hugely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for quoting the Minister in the other place. I am still sufficiently positive—noble Lords will probably say naive—about our political system to believe that this amendment could well commend itself to people in the other place when they see that it is within the spirit of what the Government want to do. I hope that it will be taken back to the other place and considered there, or that the Government will wish to introduce something like it, to help us move this forward. I would like us to get this on to the statute book as quickly as possible but, in the light of what I have heard, with reluctance I feel I have no other choice but to divide the House on this Motion.
Ayes 322, Noes 236.

Division conducted remotely on Motion A1
Motion A1 agreed.
Motions A2 (as an amendment to Motion A) and A3 (as an amendment to Motion A) not moved.

Motion B

Lord Greenhalgh: Moved by Lord Greenhalgh
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4D, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4G.
4G: Because it is supplemental to Lords Amendment 4C to which the Commons disagree.
Motion agreed.

Motion C

Lord Greenhalgh: Moved by Lord Greenhalgh
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4E, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4H.
4H: Because it is consequential on Lords Amendments 4C and 4D to which the Commons disagree.
Motion agreed.
Sitting suspended.

Covid-19: Update
 - Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 19 April.
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a Statement on coronavirus. This virus is diminished, but not defeated. Cases, hospitalisations and deaths are back to the levels we saw in September. Throughout the crisis, we have protected the NHS, and there are now 2,186 people in hospital with Covid across the UK—down 94% from the peak. The average number of daily deaths is 25—down 98%. Because of this brighter picture, we have been able to take step 2 on our road map, and it is brilliant to see the high streets bustling with life once again and to hear a real-life crowd back in Wembley this weekend—especially if one is a Leicester City supporter.
Now, with fewer Covid patients in hospital, the NHS is already turning to focus on the work to tackle the Covid backlog. Step by step, we are returning this country towards normal life, and we are on track to meet the road map set out by the Prime Minister. Last week, we hit our target to offer a vaccine to priority groups 1 to 9, and we are on track to offer a vaccine to all adults by the end of July. However, we must be vigilant, cautious and careful throughout, because we want this road to be a one-way street.
The vaccine uptake has been astonishingly high. For all over-50s, uptake is 94%. Enthusiasm among those in their late 40s was so high that they briefly overloaded the website when we opened up the booking system last week. We can see the result of that uptake in the real world. The latest data show that 98% of people aged between 70 and 84 now have Covid-19 antibodies, which are crucial to the body’s ability to fight the disease—98%. That is the protection our vaccination programme is spreading across the whole United Kingdom. Uptake among all ethnic-minority groups continues to increase. Public Health England estimates that the vaccination programme prevented over 10,000 deaths up to the end of March, and it will protect many more as the rollout continues.
We know that the first dose gives significant protection, but the second dose is crucial to make people as safe as possible. On Friday and Saturday, we saw record numbers of second doses—over 499,000 on each day—and I am delighted to tell the House that, as of midnight last night, we have now given second doses to over 10 million people across the United Kingdom. Three-quarters of over-75s have now had both jabs, rising to four-fifths of over-80s. The vaccine is our way out of this pandemic, and I am delighted that it is being taken up in such huge numbers.
We will do everything in our power to drive uptake, especially when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable. The vaccination rate among care home staff is currently below 80% in over half of all local authority areas. Many care homes have called for vaccinations to be required for those who work in such settings. We have therefore launched a consultation into whether we should require care home providers that care for older adults to deploy only workers who have received their Covid-19 vaccination, unless they have a medical exemption. We all know that older people living in care homes are at the greatest risk from this virus, and we have a duty of care to protect the most vulnerable, so we will consider all options to keep people safe.
As we deliver on stage 2 of the vaccination programme —to vaccinate all remaining adults in the UK—we must also turn our attention to what comes next. The biggest risk to our progress here in the UK is a new variant that the vaccine does not work as well against. We know from our response to other viruses, such as flu, that we need updated vaccines to tackle mutated viruses. I can tell the House that as we complete the programme for first and second jabs, we are ramping up plans for a booster shot to make sure that our vaccines stay ahead of the virus. We have already procured enough vaccine doses to begin the booster shots later this year. We will be working with our current vaccine suppliers and new suppliers such as the CureVac  partnership to work out which vaccines will be effective as a booster shot and to design new vaccines specifically targeted at the variants of concern, such as the variant first found in South Africa.
Our goal is to ensure that the vaccine protects against this dreadful disease whatever it throws at us, to keep us safe and protect our much cherished return to a normal way of life. The booster shot is important because it will help protect against new variants, but until then we must remain vigilant in case a new variant renders the vaccines less protective. New variants can jeopardise the progress that we have made here in the UK.
Thanks to our early investment in Covid genomic sequencing, we have in this country one of the best systems to spot and supress new variants wherever we find them through a combination of tough measures at the border, our genomic sequencing capability and a massive testing system. I would like to inform the House of another new development in our testing system. We have been piloting Pharmacy Collect, a system in which people can go and pick up tests for free from a pharmacy. I am delighted to tell the House that following the successful pilot, we have now rolled out Pharmacy Collect to over nine in 10 pharmacies, meaning that the universal testing offer, through which everyone can get tested up to twice a week, is now freely and easily accessible to anyone who wants it. You just have to go to your local pharmacy, Mr Speaker.
I would also like to update the House on our response to two new variants. One is the variant of concern first identified in South Africa. We have now detected a total of 557 cases of this variant since it was first identified in December. We have seen a cluster of cases in south London, predominantly in the London boroughs of Wandsworth, Lambeth and Southwark, and identified single cases over the last week in Barnet, Birmingham and Sandwell. Around two-thirds of these cases are related to international travel and have been picked up by the day 2 and day 8 testing for international arrivals. However, we have seen a small amount of community transmission, too.
As soon as those cases were discovered, we acted quickly to put in place enhanced testing, tracing and sequencing in Lambeth and Wandsworth. We have brought in 19 mobile testing units in our largest surge-testing operation to date, and we are distributing test kits to housing estates, secondary schools, places of worship and workplaces. I would urge everyone who lives in these areas, whether they have symptoms or not, to get tested regularly and help us keep the variant under control.
Secondly, we have recently seen a new variant, first identified in India. We have now detected 103 cases of this variant, of which, again, the vast majority have links to international travel and have been picked up by our testing at the border. We have been analysing samples from those cases to see whether the variant has any concerning characteristics such as greater transmissibility or resistance to treatments and vaccines, meaning that it needs to be listed as a variant of concern.
After studying the data and on a precautionary basis, we have made the difficult but vital decision to add India to the red list. That means that anyone who is not a UK or Irish resident or a British citizen cannot enter the UK if they have been in India in the previous 10 days. UK and Irish residents and British citizens who have been in India in the 10 days before their arrival will need to complete hotel quarantine for 10 days from the time of arrival. These rules will come into force at 4 am on Friday. India is a country I know well and love. Between our two countries we have ties of friendship and family. I understand the impact of this decision, but I hope that the House will concur that we must act, because we must protect the progress that we have made in this country in tackling this awful disease.
Another way that we have kept the country safe is through maintaining a strong supply of personal protective equipment. At a time of massive global demand, we secured supply lines, created a stockpile to see us through the winter and created onshore manufacturing capacity here in the UK. I am pleased to inform the House that, since February last year, we have distributed more than 10 billion items of PPE to protect people working in the NHS, social care and public services right across the country. Delivering so much PPE at such speed and scale has been an extraordinary effort that has not only helped us through the crisis, but provided a lasting legacy for the future.
Let me make two further points. I would like to inform the House that today we have appointed Professor Lucy Chappell as the chief scientific adviser to the Department of Health and Social Care. Professor Chappell has a stellar track record in science and research, including leading on the work on vaccinations in pregnancy. She has worked closely with our National Institute for Health Research, for which she will now be responsible. I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating Professor Chappell on her appointment.
Finally, last month we laid before the House our one-year status report on the Coronavirus Act 2020. I am sorry to say that the report contains an error relating to Section 24 of the Act, which concerns Home Office measures on data held for national security purposes. Full details are set out in a Written Ministerial Statement being laid today. The error does not change the substance of the report, as we will be laying the regulations to expire Section 24 alongside other provisions as soon as parliamentary time allows.
In summary, we are moving down our road to recovery, vaccinations are rising and the pressure on our NHS is falling. As we enjoy the freedoms that are returning, let us take each step safely. We must hold our nerve and follow the rules while the vaccinators do their vital work. I commend this Statement to the House.”

Baroness Thornton: I thank the Minister for the Statement made in the Commons yesterday. I pay tribute again from these Benches for the amazing work of all the NHS staff and volunteers in delivering the vaccine to so many millions of people. However, as the chief medical and scientific advisers have repeated  many times in recent weeks, the virus is still among us, creating new strains and threatening our recovery in the UK. It is therefore vital that the Government continue as we emerge from this lockdown to be led by data, not dates.
It is clearly right to add India to the red list. In the UK we have deep ties and bonds with India of course, but it was the correct thing to do in the circumstances and it is also right that the Prime Minister should postpone his visit. Pakistan and Bangladesh, both of which have lower rates than India, have been on the list since 9 April so I wonder why it took so long to add India.
Can the Minister update the House on the presence of all three new variants identified—the Indian, Brazilian and South African—and their presence and spread in the UK? Indeed, can he update the House about the global co-ordination of surveillance of the new variants?
With regard to protecting our borders, this week Hong Kong identified 47 Covid cases on a single flight from Delhi. Before the Friday deadline there will be hundreds of people arriving on flights from India. Is this not very risky?
Even with high levels of vaccination across the population, there will be significant groups who are not vaccinated—children, for example—so the virus will be endemic. As the Chief Medical Officer has recently confirmed, papers from SAGE model a third wave this summer. How do we avoid that?
The poorest and lowest paid in the most insecure jobs do not isolate as they should because they cannot afford to do so. From these Benches we have pointed out time and again that one way to ensure self-isolation—and therefore help the Government tackle this—would be to pay higher sick pay and expand its scope. Will this happen?
There is no mention in the Statement of vaccine passports. Does the Minister anticipate that they will soon be needed for football games and concerts?
I regret that we need to turn to the media stories about lobbying and the revelations in the Sunday Times regarding the former Prime Minister acting on behalf of Greensill and the payday financing scheme. As my right honourable friend Jon Ashworth said in the Commons yesterday:
“This was not an act of altruism to staff in a pandemic but an investment plan to package up loans to sell to investors, with the former Prime Minister, not nurses, in line for a payday windfall. Cameron wrote in one of his emails: ‘As you can imagine, Matt Hancock’ is ‘extremely positive about this innovative offer.’”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/4/21; col. 659.]
What was being sought was a partnership with NHS Shared Business Services, which is jointly owned by the department, to access the personal and financial data of thousands of NHS staff for their electronic records for commercial gain. I expect the move would next be to the social care sector. We know that at least 30 trusts may have spent valuable time considering the adoption of this untested payday lending scheme as a result of the lobbying by Mr Cameron. Can the Minister ensure that publication of all the text messages, emails and correspondence with David Cameron will happen? Can the Minister tell the House how many NHS leaders and officials Mr Cameron and Mr Greensill  lobbied and met? How many NHS trusts in total were approached about this expensive—and, indeed, unneeded —scheme? Even today, we see further allegations of contracts being granted without proper scrutiny and governance, following the Secretary of State’s own links with Topwood. Questions about conflicts of interest are inevitable.
Apart from the issue about pay levels in the NHS which might necessitate such a scheme, can the Minister accept that NHS staff deserve a pay rise and support, not payday loan apps forced on the NHS by speculators trying to make money out of the pandemic? What is his view of this? Does he appreciate that honesty, probity and transparency are directly linked to people’s acceptance of and adherence to the rules we have all obeyed for many months to beat this pandemic?
Last year, a former Conservative chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Feldman—who was running a lobbying firm with healthcare clients—acted as an unpaid adviser to the Minister himself. When I was a Minister I was told that one must not only be scrupulous and transparent in one’s dealings but that one should not do anything that could be misunderstood or misinterpreted.
I hope the Minister will not just get angry as he has in the past and say it is all not true and how hard everyone is working to get the pandemic under control—everyone knows how hard he and the public servants are working—as he will be missing the point. The point is about the reputation and standing of government, democracy and accountability. Does he believe it would be a good thing for the Government to reflect on the Nolan principles of public life, particularly with regard to recent procurement processes, and the lessons that might be learnt?

Baroness Brinton: My Lords, I add my tributes from these Benches to all those who continue to work well above and beyond the call of duty in all areas to do with managing the Covid pandemic. This includes the vaccination teams, the invisible workers—the scientists working in labs and all those who we do not see on a daily basis—as well as our overtired doctors, nurses and other clinical healthcare workers, and those in social care who are still taking remarkable precautions.
It is worth noting despite the reduction in cases, hospital cases and deaths that daily cases are still double the level that they were at the lifting of lockdown 1, so it is good that the Government are not speeding things up. We need to continue to move carefully and steadily, as later parts of the Statement talking about the India and South African variants give cause for some concern. It is also reassuring to see that uptake of the vaccine is excellent. However, the Statement is silent on when all adults will have been offered the second vaccine. That is important because, as scientists constantly remind us, two doses are needed. Focusing only on the first vaccine is giving the vast majority of the public overconfidence about protection. If people want to go on holiday, one dose of the vaccine will not be enough, whether that holiday is in the UK or abroad.
That leads also to those who are immune-suppressed and to those under 18, because until all are safe, none are safe. Can the Minister say if there is any news on the OCTAVE clinical trials on the ability of those who  are immune-suppressed to make and retain antibodies? Those formerly shielding—including me—still need to avoid mixing with people. They are still waiting for news to see if they can relax, even after two doses of the vaccine.
What is the news for children? I understood that the trials on over-12s had been halted following the blood clot issue with the AstraZeneca vaccine. Is that still the case? What are the long-term plans to ensure that our under-12s and, indeed, our under-18s are safe? The Statement says that:
“The vaccine is our way out of this pandemic”.
Not on its own, it is not. We must continue to test, trace and isolate to keep people safe. The Government are to be applauded for the large number of lateral flow tests because they are useful, but they are not as effective as PCR tests for really tracking the virus.
Had I not been unable to do so, I would have loved to have been at Wembley on Sunday supporting my team, which, sadly, lost to Leicester. I would have been delighted to have been part of a testing arrangement to see what happens, but other fans have said that they were only asked to be tested in advance and that there is no testing afterwards. Is that correct? In other words, how detailed is this testing for moving back into normal life going to be?
I am a member of the All-Party Group on Coronavirus, and this morning we heard from scientists who are bemused that immediate contacts of those who test positive are still not routinely PCR tested, which all the countries with a truly effective test and trace system operate. That is vital with the high percentage of people with Covid still having no symptoms, so they would believe that there is no reason for them to be tested, and it is particularly important with the information about the spread of the variants from South Africa and India.
I have family who live in Wandsworth. This time last week, as the announcement about mass testing across Lambeth and Wandsworth was made, we were told that everyone in those areas would be publicly informed. Three days later, not only had my son heard nothing, but he walked past a newly set up testing site a few hundred metres from his house, went in, and discovered that he did need to be tested. So, he and my daughter-in-law had their tests. It transpires that the only notification from Wandsworth Council before the weekend was a tweet, with none of the mechanisms used elsewhere such as texts via GPs, posters up in the street, word of mouth, or even leaflets. How on earth can that be real surge testing if only a small percentage of the population see a handful of tweets?
On the India variant, scientists also told the APPG this morning that the estimated figure of 103 cases was considerably lower than the likely number of cases circulating because only 10% to 15% of positive lateral-flow swabs are sent on to laboratories where they are scanned for variants. This might mean that the actual number is 10 to 20 times the official estimate. This brings us full circle, back to test, trace and isolate. Even with vaccines, it is vital to have an effective test, trace and isolate system to keep people safe. As the  noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, outlined, adding India to the red list but giving people three-and-a-half days’ notice before implementing it, means that a large number of cases are likely to slip into the country. Even if they are caught through positive testing, we are unlikely to have a real sense of the actual number of cases.
This follows on from the concern that we from these Benches have had about successful self-isolation and quarantining for a year. The APPG heard evidence this morning that demonstrated that arrangements at our borders, particularly in airports, are not Covid safe, either for travellers or staff, and they risk becoming breeding grounds. This now needs to include effectively separately passengers who arrive from red-list countries from those who arrive from others, and ensuring that all quarantine rules are observed. We heard evidence that people were leaving their quarantine hotels early, and that others, quarantining at home because they did not come from red-list countries, were being forced to use public transport to get to testing centres for their day eight tests. Worse, border staff are discovering around 100 fake Covid test certificates daily, and there are probably many more. If that does not signify a real worrying standard for the possibility of vaccine passports, I do not know what does. When will a proper test, trace and isolate system be put in place that includes immediate contacts and more lateral-flow tests being tested for variants, along with vital, proper, paid arrangements for self-isolation, including quarantining and proper separation in the transport arrangements for those coming from abroad?
Finally, I will spend just one minute on Greensill. It is not just Greensill: we need desperately to see full publication of all meetings and correspondence—informal and formal—that Ministers have had regarding all contracts, whether it is payday loans, PPE or testing arrangements. This also includes the new quarantining partners; the Health Secretary said on Monday that two have already been sacked, having been in place only for a short time. It is vital that the smell-test on all these contracts is evident and sure.

Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am enormously grateful to both the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Thornton, for such thoughtful questions. I totally and utterly endorse both with regard to their massive thanks to NHS staff, to the vaccinators and, in particular, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who thanked the invisible workers. I am acutely and particularly aware of the lab technicians, many of whom have worked unbelievably hard in difficult circumstances, often located far from their homes, supporting our laboratories up and down the country. There are many other categories of invisible workers in our healthcare system and they deserve our huge thanks.
I am as concerned as the noble Baronesses about the threat of variants of concern. It is an absolutely frustrating and anxiety-making fact, that we simply do not know a huge amount about what the impact of these variants will be on transmissibility, severity and escapology. We are throwing absolutely everything we have got at this to try to understand the features of  this disease. However, it is true that while we can study them in a mathematical or computer-generated model, we get only so far with that. We can study them on the workbench and get a little bit further, we can stick them in a tube with some serum from someone who has had a vaccine, and maybe figure out a bit more, but it is only when we have the real-world data of how the vaccines have worked in real life when put up against the virus that we can accurately conclude what the impact will be. Therefore, only the passage of time will give us the critical data we need to go forward.
In the meantime, we are standing up a huge international effort to try to understand the variants that are emerging around the world. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked me about global co-ordination. Britain is absolutely playing its role; it is using its chairmanship of the G7 to full effect. As noble Lords are, I am sure, fully aware, we have a world-leading facility in genomic sequencing. We have made a massive, open-hearted offer to the world to sequence the genomes of any variants of concern, from any country in the world, through the newly launched New Variant Assessment Platform. We are working to set up hubs to develop expertise in that capacity around the world. We are working extremely closely with multi-laterals such as the WHO, with the relevant major trusts such as the Gates and Rockefeller foundations and the Wellcome Trust, and with individual countries, to provide the insight, the fast-turnaround analysis and the assessment of new variants as they turn up.
Within our own country, it is concerning that variants have made landfall, but I reassure noble Lords that we have put in place remarkably diligent efforts to close down any spread of variants of concern when they have occurred, whether they are from India, Brazil or South Africa. It is a fact that the Operation Eagle process, which is supported by local authorities, DPHs, test and trace and by the JBC, has so far—touch wood—proved to be extremely effective at closing down community spread. We have numbers of the variants in the UK but a very large proportion of them are known to be related to travel and they have not yet created clusters of infection of the kind that might cause concern. The MQS—Managed Quarantine Service—has played an absolutely critical role. I pay tribute to the MQS team, who are at this very moment putting in place arrangements for managed quarantine for flights with travellers from India. They have put in place the necessary pre-testing, the hotels and the assessment.
While I hear, loud and clear, the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about that process, I reassure her that her list of concerns is quite different from the operational notes that I am given every day. The truth is that it has kept a lid on any spread of VOCs in the UK to date. On Wandsworth, I pay tribute to the enormous civic response to our concerns around the cluster there. I recognise the concerns of the relative of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in that area, but there has been an absolutely massive news and community-marketing promotion of the home testing, pharmacy testing, MTUs and ATSs in Wandsworth. Very few people indeed cannot have heard of the arrangements that are in place.
With regard to the OCTAVE clinical trials, that is of grave concern to all those who have immunosuppressed circumstances. We are working extremely hard with Birmingham University, with Professor Paul Moss, to understand more about the response of those with immunity issues. It is a frustrating fact that those with pre-existing immunity issues are likely to be the ones who have the lowest and least response to the vaccine. We are trying to understand as best we can how that can be supplemented. As noble Lords may know, we have already invested considerably in new arrangements for therapeutics and antivirals that we believe will support those with immunosuppressed conditions. I would be glad to write to the noble Baroness about our arrangement for vaccines for the under-12s.
If there are any other questions that I have not had time to answer, I would be glad to write to the noble Baronesses with full answers.

Lord Duncan of Springbank: My Lords, we now come to the 30 minutes for Back-Bench questions. I ask that noble Lords keep their questions as short as they can.

Baroness Jenkin of Kennington: What plans are being put in place for flu and Covid vaccine booster shots for the winter?

Lord Bethell: I am extremely grateful for that perceptive question. We are looking, at this very moment, at our arrangements for the autumn. For the flu vaccine, we hope to double down on our hugely successful efforts from last autumn. We hope to build on the experience of the Covid vaccine to ensure that a much wider range of people have the vaccine, so that we can deal with those who might head towards severe illness, and to stop transmission. When it comes to the Covid vaccine, we are beginning to try to understand whether a booster shot will or will not be necessary to address the threat of VOCs. As I said earlier, we are still at a stage where we do not have the full science at our disposal but, if necessary, we will roll out a vaccine booster programme in the autumn.

Lord Singh of Wimbledon: My Lords, India being placed on the red list will cause real hardship to many UK citizens with close family ties in the subcontinent. Does the Minister agree that, while this has necessitated the cancellation of the Prime Minister’s visit to India, it will also have prevented him bringing back a virulent strain of the virus Modi-us bigotus, which attacks and can seriously harm a country’s entire democratic immune system?

Lord Bethell: My Lords, our thoughts are with the people of India at a time when they are fighting the disease in very difficult circumstances. I acknowledge that, for families in the UK with family and business ties with India, the arrangements under the red list are extremely inconvenient, and we are doing it only because it is absolutely necessary.

Bishop of London: I am sure the Minister knows that those from deprived communities are more likely to catch Covid-19, be admitted to ITU and to  die from the disease. They are also less likely to take up a vaccination. Could the Minister update us on action by the Government to ensure that Covid-19 does not continue to be a disease of poverty?

Lord Bethell: The right reverend Prelate hits the nail on the head. It is extremely sad, frustrating and hard to acknowledge the fact that those who live in deprivation are often those who are hardest hit by this awful disease. We have worked extremely hard to get the vaccine, and testing and tracing, into those communities and to support them with whatever education and community support we can. But the fact remains that this country has an unequal health outcome for too many families, and it is part of our levelling-up agenda that we try to address that. The obesity strategy is one way in which that we can do that, but there are a great many others that we need to look at.

Lord Sikka: My Lords, 4.7 million people in England are waiting for routine operations and procedures. Some 388,000 have been on waiting lists for more than a year. Even with the extra £7 billion a year, it is estimated that it will take five years to clear the backlog. Can I urge the Government to declare an NHS emergency, equivalent to that of Covid-19, provide additional resources to the NHS, and inform the House of the targets they will set for reducing the waiting list?

Lord Bethell: The noble Lord is right that the backlog is a grave issue, and we are fighting as hard as we can to address it. The big guns of the NHS are moving from Covid to addressing the backlog, but we should not overstate its threat either. Large parts of the NHS remained open all the way through Covid, and I pay tribute to those in the NHS who worked extremely hard to ensure that many elective procedures and much diagnosis continued. We do them and their reputations no favours if we imply that the NHS was in any way doing less than it should have done to work through Covid. But the noble Lord is right; this is a grave issue, and we take it extremely seriously.

Lord Scriven: My Lords, overwhelming evidence now exists that lower-paid people are less likely to take a test, self-isolate or isolate for the full period, due to not being able to afford to do so. What extra support will the Government now put in place to deal with this Achilles heel of the test, trace and isolate system?

Lord Bethell: My Lords, we put in place a considerable amount of support for those on low wages, including the furlough scheme, and a huge amount of economic support. It is true that those on low wages have wage pressure put on their lives, but we have statutory sick pay for those who are sick and out of work, and we have a huge amount of investment in local government and in charities, which also provide support for those who live in deprivation.

Lord Sarfraz: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend the Minister for just how hard he has worked and for all that his department has achieved over the last year. Will he tell us what plans there are for the development of new vaccines in response to new variants?

Lord Bethell: My Lords, all the major vaccine companies are already looking at tweaking their existing vaccines, or developing new ones, in response to the new variants. AstraZeneca, for instance, has been working on that for some months. It is not clear, at this stage, whether we will have to start again on the vaccine programme or simply arrange new booster shots, or whether the existing vaccines will, in fact, run the full course. It is unbelievably frustrating to be in this hiatus of short knowledge—that is where we are at the moment—but please be reassured that this Government are investing absolutely everything necessary to ensure that vaccines will be available for whatever comes down the track.

Lord Rooker: I can confirm what the Minister said about other services in the NHS. The staff at the Macmillan Renton Unit at Hereford County Hospital were working flat out this morning when I went for one of my check-ups. I have two brief questions for the Minister, one of which follows on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, said, in a way. First, there was a reference in the Statement to the flu issue. I understand that our flu jabs have always been made in India, which will be more than occupied producing Covid vaccines for itself and others in the next few months, so where are the UK flu jabs for the forthcoming season later this year coming from? Secondly—if I cannot have an answer now, I would like a letter—who is responsible for maintaining and monitoring the shelf life of the PPE that we have?

Lord Bethell: My Lords, I join the noble Lord in commending the people who work at Macmillan and all the other important diagnostic centres that have remained committed to their work throughout Covid under extremely difficult circumstances, delivering hugely important healthcare services. The noble Lord is stretching my knowledge of vaccination with this question, but it is my understanding that most of our flu jabs are grown in eggs in East Anglia and we do not rely on Indian supplies for the flu jab. This may seem like an extraordinary fact, and I doubt it, even as I stand here at the Dispatch Box, but I would be glad to write to him to confirm the point.

Baroness Tyler of Enfield: My Lords, I welcome the Government’s consultation on whether vaccines should be required for care staff working with older adults. To make this easier, could the Minister say what plans the Government have to ensure that care staff are paid for time spent being vaccinated, particularly if they have to come in when not on shift or have to take time off because of any short-term reaction to the jab? Also, are the Government prepared to support care homes financially to enable staff who cannot have the vaccine for clinical or other specified reasons to be redeployed to non-front-line work?

Lord Bethell: My Lords, the vaccine is typically seen as personal medical hygiene. I am not sure if arrangements have been made for people to be paid while they get vaccinated, but I would be glad to write to the noble Baroness to confirm that. She makes an extremely sensible point about redeployment; I do not know the precise details, but would be glad to write to her.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, one of the very few positives to come out of the pandemic is that the spotlight has shone on the superb life sciences sector in this country. For example, 47% of all global genomic sequencing is conducted in the UK. Could my noble friend the Minister elaborate on any future collaboration plans between the Government and the sector and how we intend to continue to grow our world-leading position in this space?

Lord Bethell: My noble friend is entirely right: life sciences is a huge national strength. It was a quiet industry that people did not speak of much; now it is centre stage. Post Brexit, the role of the MHRA, as one of the world’s leading regulators, is something of which we can be enormously proud as a country. It is also making a lot of businesses think that the UK should very much be the focus of their investment, going forward. BEIS and the DHSC are working together very closely, through the Office for Life Sciences, to ensure that the message is heard loud and clear, around the world, that Britain is the right place to invest.

Baroness Verma: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister tell me what plans are in place to monitor the work being done to ensure that cities such as Leicester, which was in the longest lockdown ever, do not go backwards now that people are being vaccinated? How will they monitor that? Could my noble friend also tell me what is being done to encourage people into the social care sector? There is an enormous demand for care workers, and yet we do not seem able to fill those gaps.

Lord Bethell: My noble friend is right: the people of Leicester have done a terrific job at getting the rate down. It was once 571 per 100,000, and on 15 April it was 74 per 100,000. This is a huge achievement, but I am afraid that behind that lie some concerns. Nationally, we are at 26 per 100,000, but 23 local authorities have cases above 50, and Leicester is one of them. In some areas of the country, the virus is proving extremely resilient. That is partly due to the deprivation referred to by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and partly due to the cultural and practical habits of those involved. We are working really hard to try to address those knotty problems, and I welcome the civic engagement of all who live there.

Lord Robathan: My Lords, last week, the Prime Minister said that the lockdown has been doing
“the bulk of the work in reducing”—
—infections, then Simon Stevens said that
“'Vaccines are successfully reducing hospitalisations and deaths”.
Around the world, lockdowns are not being as successful as one might have imagined, so could my noble friend say whether it is the Government’s opinion that the reduction of deaths and serious cases is down to the lockdown or to the amazing success of vaccinations? Secondly, is what I read true—and it may be completely untrue—that the average age of death from Covid is higher than average life expectancy?

Lord Bethell: My noble friend is quite wrong if he is seeking to imply that there is any doubt about lockdowns working. Lockdowns work incredibly well  because they put space between people. The science behind lockdowns is very simple and incontrovertible. That is the learning of the last year, and those who seek to cast doubt on it, time and again, session after session, do us no favours at all. We are at a moment in the cycle of the disease when the weight is being lifted by the lockdown and by the vaccine—it is somewhere between the two. I cannot call it, and Sir Simon Stevens and the Prime Minister cannot call it—it is somewhere between the two. But we should be in no doubt: if there is a variant of concern that makes landfall in the UK and threatens the success of the vaccine, we will be back in lockdown. We should be extremely careful to avoid that eventuality.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I join the Minister in thanking all those involved in the vaccination programme. I was surprised that the Secretary of State in another place did not mention in his Statement the important topic of Covid passports. It is reported that Michael Gove, who is in charge of the Whitehall study into their use, is visiting Israel and is a big fan of its use of the “green pass” scheme for entry to venues including gyms, swimming pools, restaurants, theatres, cinemas and the like. Putting to one side whether such a system would be discriminatory, can the Minister explain whether it would include, as well as evidence of vaccination, recent proof of a test or of having had Covid recently? Also, does the vaccination, or recovery from Covid, nullify the chance of reinfection and therefore of becoming a vector?

Lord Bethell: My Lords, the Cabinet Office is reviewing whether Covid status certification could play a role in reopening our economy, reducing restrictions on social contact and improving safety. That work is under way. The noble Lord refers to the importance of social justice and civic rights, and he is entirely right to do so; those are exactly the kinds of issues that the Cabinet Office is weighing up. We need to look at everything that the technical toolkit can provide us with to fight this virus and any others that may emerge from the back of the bat cave. We are trying to avoid the kind of social, health and economic impacts that these 21st-century pandemics have on our country. Technology such as Covid certificates can provide an important defence mechanism.

Lord Cormack: My Lords, my noble friend knows that I have repeatedly raised the subject of care home workers. I am grateful for his responses and for the letter that I have had from our honourable friend Nadhim Zahawi in the other place. However, in that letter, the Minister for vaccines acknowledges the vulnerability of people in care homes and that they can be a source of spreading the virus. I urge that an early decision is made to ensure that care home workers, who attend to the most intimate needs of their often extremely frail patients, are vaccinated. To compel them to be vaccinated may seem a bit draconian, but, if we are concerned about the containment of these viruses and their spread, surely being vaccinated is not too high a price to ask care home workers to pay.

Lord Bethell: My Lords, I hear the message from my noble friend loud and clear. Vaccination rates among care home workers in some communities  are just not high enough. The Government have acknowledged that point, and that is why we have launched the consultation. We must be fair to the social care workers who work so hard, looking after those we love and care about. We have put this consultation in place to understand the most thoughtful, fair and meaningful way to go about this knotty problem. The consultation is moving as quickly as it can, and I assure my noble friend that everything is being done to expedite this matter.

Lord Balfe: My Lords, as the Minister will know, I have been a little doubtful about the amount of effort that has gone into this particular exercise. NHS waiting lists have gone through the roof in the last year, and the amount of care being given has dropped substantially. There is now a huge backlog. What plans do the Government have to get the NHS open again? Surgeries are still closed; hospitals are still closed; doctors are still seeing people only on videos. There is no reason now why surgeries should not start to be opened, and no reason why hospitals, apart from looking after their own convenience, should not start to cut the waiting lists back. I ask the Minister whether one of the very able people who are looking after the Covid programme could be diverted to getting the NHS back into action.

Lord Bethell: My Lords, I completely recognise my noble friend’s concerns, but I reassure him that surgeries simply are not closed, and if he has any examples of those he thinks are closed, I would be grateful if he would write to me. Hospitals are not closed and if he has any examples, I would be grateful if he would write to me. In fact, the NHS has for months done a huge amount not only to be wide, wide open, but to grow in its capacity quite dramatically. It is an inevitable, predictable, sad but frustrating fact that the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, like every other pandemic, is the hit or the follow-on effect on all the other procedures that are needed from a healthcare system. We have diverted a huge amount of capacity from Covid to ordinary, business-as-usual care; we are doing a huge amount to address the backlog and we will continue to move the resources accordingly, but we have to keep provision in place for those who, I am afraid to say, are still in hospital with Covid, and we are aware that the threat remains on the horizon.

Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, in addition to the great success of the vaccination campaign, at last it is now accepted that the high mortality from Covid in the UK, and in many other countries, is due to the high prevalence of obesity. The high Covid mortality is not the fault of politicians, civil servants or scientists. Does the Minister agree that what we now need is for everyone to unite to support the Prime Minister’s campaign to reduce obesity in order to promote a healthier nation and reduce the mortality from any future pandemics?

Lord Bethell: My Lords, the post-mortem is not fully written. When it is, the causes of our relatively high mortality rate will undoubtedly be complex and a  number of factors will have played a role, but the noble Lord is right that obesity will definitely be on the list. This country is too heavy in comparison even to our European partners. We are one of the heaviest countries in the whole of Europe and if you are overweight, I am afraid to say that the brutal truth is that your heart is having to work too hard, your lungs are having to work too hard, your immune system is run down and the ability of your organs to fight disease is greatly reduced. That is one of the reasons why a very large number of people have really struggled in hospital to fight this disease. If you are carrying an obesity-related illness, such as diabetes or some other major affliction, you really are in no shape to fight off one of the major diseases.
The resilience of this country depends on it getting fitter. That is why we have focused on the obesity strategy that we have, and we will be building on it further. The noble Lord is entirely right that this challenge is well recognised by the Prime Minister from the top, from his own personal experience and his acknowledged fight with the disease last year. It is recognised by the whole of government and by the NHS and our healthcare system.
Sitting suspended.

Conduct Committee
 - Motion to Agree

Baroness Donaghy: Moved by Baroness Donaghy
That the Report from the Select Committee Registration of members’ foreign interests: follow-up (9th Report, HL Paper 255) be agreed to.

Baroness Donaghy: My Lords, I am moving this Motion as a member of the Conduct Committee on behalf of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, because he has interests relating to the contents of the report and therefore recused himself from deliberations on it. I declare my interest as a former member and acting chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The current chair of that committee, the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, regrets that he is unable to speak today but has confirmed that he is supportive of the committee’s proposals.
This report is the final piece in a jigsaw of changes that we have put to the House to increase transparency around Members’ overseas interests, reflecting considerable public concern about foreign state influence on our politics and the integrity of our political process. In December, the House approved our proposal that Members should be required to register work for, and earnings from,
“governments of foreign states (including departments and agencies), organisations which may be thought by a reasonable member of the public to be foreign state-owned or controlled, and individuals with official status (whether executive, legislative or judicial) in foreign states when acting in that capacity”.
This is now part of our code, so Members must register the existence of such relationships within one month of them starting, and the level of remuneration within the slightly longer timeline set out in the report.
The one remaining question was whether there should be any exemptions to these requirements on the grounds of professional confidentiality. We gathered evidence to help us make a decision by holding a consultation of all Members and inviting submissions from the professional bodies. Some of the responses did point to a professional duty of confidentiality, but all of them accepted that the information could be disclosed if the client agreed.
That is why we have said two things very clearly: first, any professional relationships with foreign Governments and associated organisations which existed on the date the report was agreed—2 December last year—will not be caught by the new requirements at this stage. Members in such a position will have the whole of 2021 to complete the work, reach an agreement with the client about disclosure, end the relationship, or take leave of absence.
Secondly, any new such professional relationship commencing after the report was agreed in December will be embarked upon in the full knowledge that it will need to be disclosed, along with the level of remuneration. This is a prospective rule, so Members should be telling potential clients that they will be obliged to make these disclosures if taken on. If the client accepts this, then no professional duty of confidentiality will be breached.
Some Members say that this will damage their chances of winning business. Even within each profession —in particular, the law—there are different views on whether this is really true. If some Members lose some work, that is regrettable, but these requirements apply to only a very narrow range of organisations and the committee has made it clear in its report that it has no intention of extending them to a broader range of organisations. This is in spite of the fact that Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee recommended that Members of this House should be required to disclose all earnings in the same way as Members of the other place, a position which is also espoused by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, in his amendment to my Motion.
Our reason for restricting the reach of our proposals is that, in our view, foreign Governments and organisations under their control are qualitatively different from other types of organisation. For a legislator in the United Kingdom Parliament to be secretly working for a foreign power, whose interests may be diametrically opposed to the UK’s, is just unacceptable to the public in this day and age. It is not just about Russia, as some have implied; even close allies like France and the United States sometimes have an agenda which is at variance with the UK’s national interest.
Furthermore, it is not just about dodgy lobbyists. I accept that lawyers and arbitrators see no connection between their being paid by a foreign Government and what they might say in the House, and this may be accurate. Many people, however—perhaps most—would say that there is at least a suspicion that a Member being paid tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of pounds might be a little more kindly disposed to the organisation paying them than they would otherwise be. It is not just about being beyond reproach in practice; it is vital for our democracy that,  wherever possible, Parliament is seen to be beyond reproach. Being a legislator is a privilege, and with that privilege comes an obligation to be transparent. In the view of the committee and many others besides, the public interest must trump Members’ private interests in this instance.
It may be helpful if I address at this stage the proposed amendments to my Motion. The first says that we are going too far, while the second says that we are not going far enough. This suggests that the committee, which has spent many hours deliberating on this issue over the past year, has struck the right balance. Unless, therefore, any new and compelling arguments are made today, I am not minded to accept either amendment. I do, however, wish to assure the House that, if the report is agreed today, the Conduct Committee will carefully monitor its implementation and be open to representations in the light of experience. As always, the Registrar of Lords’ Interests is available to advise Members on how to comply with the rules, and he will also be able to convey feedback to the committee. I look forward to hearing the views of noble Lords today. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Lord Garnier: Moved by Lord Garnier
As an amendment to the Motion in the name of Baroness Donaghy, to leave out all the words after “that” and insert “this House thanks the Select Committee for its Report Registration of members’ foreign interests: follow-up (9th Report, HL Paper 255), but returns it to the Committee for further consideration.”

Lord Garnier: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, for introducing this debate. She brings to our proceedings a decade of experience in your Lordships’ House, but also valuable experience gained from her work outside Parliament. The noble Baroness has been an administrator at two universities; has had senior roles in the trade union movement, including as president of the TUC; has chaired ACAS and the Committee on Standards in Public Life; has been on the Low Pay Commission; and has undertaken an inquiry into work-related deaths in the construction industry. In the noble Baroness, we see why this House is what it is and why it works, and why we need to be cautious about disabling Members of this House from participating in its work.
The House can draw on the experience of people from every corner of the country and walk of life. Some are politicians and former Members of the other place, and some are from the professions, religious ministry, academia, public service in government, the Armed Forces and the judiciary, or business or rural affairs, but we bring to this House our own individual and conjoined experiences, which inform the arguments we deploy in what we believe to be the best interests of the country and its governance.
I dare say that today’s task is not one that the noble Baroness had longed for since her arrival in this House. I am not exactly ecstatic about moving my amendment,  but I hope to provide a bridge across which the House as a whole can travel in a spirit of mutual respect, thoughtfulness and compromise. I move this amendment not in a spirit of criticism but of collegiality. I want the problem identified by the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Conduct Committee dealt with in a way that satisfies, on the one hand, the interests of your Lordships’ House—one self-governing half of this bicameral Parliament—and, on the other hand, the public interest that parliamentarians do their work unsullied by insidious external influences.
There is another linked but fundamental question: should that which could lead to a change in the constitution of your Lordships’ House come about as the result of a recommendation of a committee comprising of four lay members and four Members of this House? Is not the altering of the constitution of the House, and thus of Parliament and the country, a matter for legislation to be considered by Parliament as a whole? To follow the committee’s recommendations now is to set them in stone—I have heard what the noble Baroness said, but I believe that it will set them in stone—but if we hold off a while, we can still agree with her later.
I refer to my own interests in the register, although I stress that this debate is not about me but about the House of Lords. Although I am a barrister in chambers that do a great deal of commercial arbitration and litigation, some of which involves overseas companies, Governments and government agencies, the international element of my own practice has only occasionally involved advising foreign governments or agencies. Mostly, it involves advising foreign companies or private individuals and, in cases involving the European Court of Human Rights, acting against foreign Governments. In this jurisdiction, I have acted both for and against the Government, and have even had the experience, while representing a former Prime Minister, of referring to the current Prime Minister as “the defendant” and subjecting him to sharp criticism in open court. I am also a consultant to an international firm of solicitors which, among other things, advises not only the United Kingdom Government but foreign Governments. I have worked on those matters but, as I do not know what the firm charges its clients, I have no idea how I could apportion my retainer, which also covers work not caught by the follow-up report.
It would be naive not to realise that this debate has been affected by perceptions and, perhaps, the reality of misconduct in public life. There is obvious public concern, lately aired in the media, about what is called the Greensill Capital affair, but it has nothing whatever to do with this debate, or what concerned the ISC in 2020 or the Conduct Committee this year or last. But that concern is a powerful reason why I suggest we postpone consideration of the committee’s recommendations on the disclosure regime that it seeks to impose upon your Lordships’ House. The chairman of the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has announced an inquiry into lobbying. There is the Boardman inquiry, and the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has a Topical Question this Thursday. Of course, none of this was in the minds of the Conduct   Committee, but its reports are being read as though it was. I suggest that a pause will assist, not prevent, proper consideration of the follow-up report.
Our consideration of the questions posed by the report will, unless separated by a margin of some months, be skewed by two elided questions. They describe conflicting matters of public interest, but we are being asked to resolve the conflict in a rush and against a difficult backdrop. Our task is by no means impossible and we can do it if, as a House, we give ourselves time to think it through.
First, should Members of your Lordships’ House who are not doctors but, for example, lawyers, architects, accountants, or practitioners in other entirely legitimate areas of work, have to identify and declare their earnings from foreign Governments or foreign government entity clients, thus having to choose whether to break their obligations of professional confidence, or stop working in order to remain here, or take leave of absence or retire from the House altogether in order to carry on with their lawful professional lives? Secondly, how does this House prevent its Members acting as the covert mouthpiece of a foreign Government, particularly one whose interests conflict with those of our own country?
We do not need to compel the former in order to prevent the latter. As recognised by the ISC, our country is a target for Russian disinformation. There will be other malign state actors too. We cannot be complacent about hostile states deliberately trying to influence our democratic processes, but making me say whether I have advised an EU member state’s justice ministry or a Commonwealth country’s law commission about the English deferred prosecution agreement system, and what I was paid to do so, is not going to stop President Putin suborning our democracy.
This amendment is not an excuse for a lawyers’ whinge, nor was it tabled to criticise any of your Lordships who have chosen, for whatever reason, not to engage in paid work outside Parliament. But nor should my amendment be dismissed out of hand just because lawyers, but others too, will be affected by the report’s proposals. We are an unsalaried House, and I am sure that everyone contributing to this debate has the interests of Parliament and the public in mind.
In June 2020, the Conduct Committee made recommendations about Members’ earnings from foreign Governments, dealing with corrupt or repressive regimes, and restricting parliamentary activities by those who had been on overseas visits paid for by a foreign Government. But that was all about lobbying, and mirrored the ISC’s concerns. With respect, being paid to lobby on behalf of Russia is quite different from being paid to advise or represent a client, albeit a governmental one, in a commercial or other legal dispute.
As Solicitor-General I was precluded by the Ministerial Code and by my professional obligations from saying whether I had advised my client, the Government, on a particular matter, still less what that advice was. If I now appear in open court, subject to an anonymity order, the need to keep confidential the name of my client falls away, but to require me to disclose their name on first payment, or in a matter that never reaches court, would place both me and my client in difficulty.  To require the parties to an international commercial arbitration—a confidential way of settling disputes—to surrender their privacy, or to make it impossible for them to employ Members of this House as advocates or arbitrators, will not bother Putin. It goes much further than the rules of the other place, whose membership is salaried, with large office costs allowances, transport costs and a second home allowance. Let us pause and return to this soon, but later.

Baroness Pitkeathley: I should inform the House that if the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, is agreed to, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, will be pre-empted.

Lord Balfe: I suppose I should begin by saying that for a time I worked for David Cameron. Maybe I was foolish, but I did not get paid. I did it as a volunteer —but clearly I was working for him. I thank my Front Bench for sending round an email to all Members saying that there is a free vote on my amendment. I hope that that will encourage people to vote for it. I would be very interested to hear, in the course of the debate, what the other political groups are advising.
I tabled this amendment because the report came at an opportune time. When the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, was answering questions on the Statement, we heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton, complaints—justified, probably—that contracts had been let but not declared into the public space. And at the heart of my amendment are the words
“if the public are to be supportive of legislation, they have a right to know the full financial interests of legislators”.
The amendment then
“asks the Select Committee to examine the need for the House to adopt disclosure rules”.
It does not tell the committee to do that; it asks it to examine the need—nothing more than that—so it is quite mild. The committee could examine the need, then come back and say, “Look, it just doesn’t work.”
There are many other interests, as well as foreign interests. I have never been paid by any foreign Government, but I have a well-known aversion to certain aspects of Her Majesty’s Government’s foreign policy which I have made quite clear. I have made it clear because that is where my analysis leads me, not because anyone has tried to bribe me. I sometimes feel quite upset that I must be a very lowly species, because nobody wants to bribe me. I cannot even say that I turned a bribe down, because I have never been offered one.
What we have to look at is the perception of the politician by the public. It is not a happy perception at the moment: there is a feeling that we are doing quite nicely, without saying how. We must tackle that. The public have a right to know, in my estimation. I hear what my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier says about barristers, but the Bar Standards Board, in its evidence, says:
“The majority of barristers are self-employed, so it should not be difficult for most barristers who are Members to identify the fees paid to them by a client.”
I do not find it difficult to work out where my money comes from, and I have no difficulty about declaring where it comes from. In the interests of transparency, we should be looking at a system whereby people declare where their principal income comes from.
I am asking the committee to look into this because it is a complex issue. There are de minimis standards, and there are different standards of declaration. They need considering carefully, and they need to be brought before this House; they are not a suitable subject for an amendment. In paragraph 13 the report says that
“the public interest ultimately must override the issue of client confidentiality”,
and that is absolutely right—it must.
It is not unreasonable for us to declare what we are paid. We are legislators, and we are passing laws that affect people on a day-to-day basis. What is wrong with our declaring what we get? I have never found any difficulty with the present rules, so I do not see why any noble Lord should feel great difficulty with a new level of declaration.
Are we going to start telling the Government that we want to know what went on with Greensill? That is well worth a debate, because it reveals, to put it mildly, a lamentable situation in Whitehall which clearly needs addressing. But if we are to ask for that to be addressed, we must address our own situation. Our situation, too, deserves a level of transparency. That is all I want to see.
I will be dividing the House because I should like the public to see how many people do not even want a committee to look at this matter—not doing anything, but just looking at it. Since there will be a free vote on our side, I hope that there will be a free vote elsewhere. I hope that the noble Baroness’s committee will be asked to look at the matter and come back because if we are not prepared even to look at these sorts of matters, we are not fit to be telling the Government to reveal their secrets, which I want brought out into the open. I shall sit down and might move my amendment to the Motion later.

Lord Newby: My Lords, I start by reminding the House that the Conduct Committee was established as a successor to the former Privileges Committee. That earlier committee included Leaders and Chief Whips, and the view was rightly taken that a body distinct from the leadership of the House and with significant outside representation should take that committee’s place. The assumption was that the new committee would have an authority that the old committee lacked. It would have, by virtue of its external members, more professional experience and expertise, and there would therefore be a strong presumption that the House would accept its proposals unless it could be demonstrated that the committee had been in some respect negligent in the way in which it had decided upon them.
In this case, the committee has been diligent in the way in which it went about its task. It sought and received submissions from all interested parties and reached a considered view on how to proceed. That does not, of course, prevent your Lordships’ House rejecting the proposals or sending them back for further  consideration, but if the House chose to do either of those things, it could reasonably do so only on the basis that something was seriously deficient in the way in which the committee had done its work that caused its conclusions to be legitimately brought into question.
The central conclusion and recommendation in the committee’s report is to be found in paragraph 8, which states that,
“we believe that the public interest requires absolute transparency when it comes to members of the national legislature working for a foreign power. If the interest cannot be properly disclosed, then it should not be taken on by an active member.”
If the House agrees with that statement it should agree with the report. So should the House agree with that statement?
What constitutes the public interest is often a matter of debate, rather than a black-and-white issue. In this case, there is absolutely no suggestion that any Member of your Lordships’ House who is a lawyer representing a foreign power has used their membership of your Lordships’ House in any way improperly. But that is not the question. The question is whether absolute transparency at this stage will strengthen the perceptions of your Lordships’ House or, just as importantly, whether a failure to approve this report now would damage those perceptions and, therefore, be against the public interest. That is ultimately a political judgment. My political judgment is that failure to pass this report today would damage our reputation. Here, the political context is crucial.
As we debate this report, the Commons is conducting several different inquiries into the rules around lobbying and the registration of ministerial interests. There are serious allegations about the role of the former Prime Minister, former civil servants and serving Ministers. Furthermore, the Government are planning, in the light of potential foreign interference in our domestic processes, to introduce a measure in the next Session requiring all those who work for foreign Governments, even only as PR advisers—not lobbyists—to register their connection formally. Every single aspect of the workings of your Lordships’ House, from the role of hereditary Peers and how much money they claim in expenses more generally, is under intense media scrutiny.
If, in this context, your Lordships’ House were to decide that, uniquely, lawyers who are Members of your Lordships’ House with clients who are foreign powers or their associated organisations should be exempt from registering their interest, this would damage the reputation of the House and would be against the public interest. I therefore believe that the report before us should be adopted today.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, is slightly beguiling, because it says, “There are all these other things going on, so perhaps we should have a look at everything.” Unlike the implication of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said, the register and the guidance about how we behave is a living document; we amend it regularly. Deciding something today does not set anything in stone. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, wishes it were not under such perpetual scrutiny. It will not stop   being scrutinised or, I suspect, amended. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, is slightly mischievous when he says that if we do not vote for his amendment, we are somehow saying that we think that everything is wonderful and nothing should ever be looked at again.
We have a good report before us today, which should be accepted. I agree only to this very limited extent with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier: I think we should leave it at that. I do not think we should be going beyond that today. Let us do this and get the clarity which is currently lacking. If other things arise down the line which need to be investigated, the noble Baroness’s committee is perfectly capable of doing so expeditiously. My recommendation, which is personal—people have a free vote and I expect a robust exchange of views among members of my party, as on other Benches—is to vote for the report and against both the amendments.

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood: As many of your Lordships will know, I was a dissenting member of the committee concerning this report, and mine is therefore a somewhat unusual, perhaps somewhat delicate, position in this debate. First, let me make it absolutely plain: I have no interest myself in its outcome. Although I am of course a retired judge, it is more than 40 years since I had a private client, and never in my life have I arbitrated—and I am not starting now.
Secondly, I have a high regard and, indeed, considerable liking for the other members of the Conduct Committee, and I am certainly not about to rubbish them—only to suggest that on this particular issue, they have now come to a wrong decision and should think again. Their first thoughts were right. The original scheme was set out in our earlier report, already referred to, which I had no problem in presenting to the House in December, the chairman of the committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, having had to recuse himself, as the House has heard. That report was strikingly different from what is now proposed. Put simply, this proposal, unlike its predecessor, would introduce an absolutist, no exception requirement of registration of any form of governmental or government-influenced earnings.
I will say a word or two about the origins of this proposal. These lie in a single paragraph of the ISC report of 2019, which noted that a number of Members of this House had business interests linked to Russia —that was the only state mentioned—and that those relationships should be carefully scrutinised, given the potential for Russia to exploit them. It suggested that the code and register should provide the necessary transparency, and then pointed out that the Commons requires registration of all payments over £100 from any employment outside the House, home or abroad, and that we should consider introducing such a requirement—essentially what the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, proposes for us today.
Finally, it suggested a foreign agents registration. I will make four quick points on that. First, I understand that a foreign agents registration Bill is now under consideration. Secondly, this House is very different from the Commons; your Lordships are not salaried  or expected to work full-time for the House. Rather, we are encouraged to have a broad range of outside interests, financial and otherwise. The guide says that
“the House thrives on their expertise”
and that
“it is not only permissible, but desirable, that such Members, having declared”—
I emphasise this point—
“their employment and other interests, should contribute to debate on issues to which these interests are relevant.”
Thirdly, I suggest that most work undertaken by Members for foreign Governments is beneficial to the UK, not harmful. Members advise, for example, in the fields of good governance, tackling corruption and crime, and human rights compliance. Fourthly, whatever the outcome of this new registration proposal, there is always the clearest obligation for Members to declare any interest that could be thought to affect whatever they contemplate doing or saying in their parliamentary capacity. It is not suggested that this obligation has proved insufficient to this point.
I will briefly mention our earlier report, which I presented, in which the need for exemption was specifically recognised in cases where there is a duty of confidentiality. It was said that the Conduct Committee would consult further on what guidance to give on those exemptions. There was a consultation process, to which 42 Members responded; only three believed there should be no exemptions whatever, yet that is what this report proposes.
Annexed to the report, as noble Lords will have seen, are brief statements from the main professional legal and accountancy bodies about rules, duties and obligations of confidentiality. It is not only these professionals who have such obligations. So too do other Members who offer services to foreign Governments along the lines I have suggested, and in the defence and security field, because of contractual and commercial obligations, which are surely well recognised and which they are subject to. I hope that some of those will be explained during this debate.
Make no mistake: this report would introduce a major new strategic decision, likely bringing in its wake at some point, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said and the current disavowal of the committee, the requirement on a much wider basis to register all earnings. I cannot think of any other case where the Conduct Committee has sought to introduce a registration requirement which imposes such profound limitations on the legitimate interests and activities of a number of present Members.
Of course, one recognises the virtues of transparency and of course people have in mind at this hour the optics, with the Greensill scandal unfolding in the background, but in truth the cases could hardly be more different. That case exposes a very real and present problem and is rightly being given a lot of attention in terms of how to counter an obvious mischief. Your Lordships are being invited to approve a scheme with far-reaching consequences, with no demonstrating mischief to cure. I suggest that the transparency here, limited by those who are worried about a wider view, is being sought at simply too high a price and at the cost of too much in the way of legitimate interests which are inconsistent  with obligations of confidentiality. Those interests should not be sacrificed merely on the altar of a supposed perception; in truth, that would damage the House.
In an article in last Thursday’s Times, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws—I hope she will allow me to call her a noble friend—although supporting registration is recorded as being
“prepared to ditch the requirement to register the amounts earned, saying ‘we can probably guess’.”
Registration of the amounts earned lies at the heart of this proposal and presents a real problem. Without that requirement, the proposal would be substantially less objectionable, but to achieve that modification, or indeed to deal with various other anomalies and uncertainties that may well come to light in this debate, your Lordships would need to accept the Garnier amendment. For my part, I cannot in all conscience recommend that your Lordships accept this report.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I support the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. First, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Donaghy on the clarity with which she has presented this report, and I hope she knows how much I respect her opinions. I am not going to speak in any detail to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, as time will not permit, save to note that the points he raises, whether one agrees with his proposed endpoint or not, may support the need for further consideration, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, is hoping for.
Predictably, I want to focus my remarks on the specific position of lawyers. I am not going to develop at any length the arguments in relation to arbitrators, because that, I anticipate, will be adequately done by others, save to say this. The United Kingdom legal system—I suppose one could say industry—is highly respected. One reason for this is the availability of immensely experienced and professional arbitrators. For cases involving states, it is particularly valuable that those arbitrators include retired UK judges, some of whom we have the benefit of having in this House. Foreign states, as well as other foreign parties, are happy to entrust important decisions to such arbitrators, who they have confidence are not only expert but utterly independent and objective.
I fail to see the concern of noble, and noble and learned, Lords of this House about accepting an appointment as an arbitrator. On that ground alone, the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, deserves support. But I believe it deserves support more widely when dealing with the position of lawyers who advise or represent foreign Governments. Here, I disclose my interest. Through my firm, I act regularly for and against Governments, which is a feature to which I will return. I do not lobby on behalf of foreign Governments. I act as a lawyer advising or representing them in actual or potential legal disputes. Of course, as I imagine others will underline, other rules prevent misuse of my position here. I do not believe I have ever spoken in a debate in this House where a foreign government client has been involved.
As for what I do, I may represent them in court, as I did a Caribbean Government in their own courts, and in the Privy Council here in a dispute about their Parliament. I may represent them in international  courts, such as the International Court of Justice, in a dispute between several states in the Middle East. I also act in arbitrations, particularly in disputes about the way a state has treated the investments of the nationals of another. This is an important modern device, which has taken the place of gunboat diplomacy when states would seek to intervene to protect the interests of their nationals.
Those representations are mostly in the public domain, and I have therefore disclosed those voluntarily following the first report of the committee. But some are not in the public domain, and some are regarded by the states involved as highly confidential. I am well aware, from experience, that a Government may insist that there should be no disclosure of services in such a matter. Many of them are, as I say, highly sensitive.
Generally, the fees paid are not in the public domain. That matter can also be regarded as very confidential. At least while the dispute is active, the state may not want revelation of what it is paying to foreign lawyers. Under our law and the professional rules of conduct that govern barristers such as me, we are not allowed to reveal that information, save where required by law or with the client’s consent, as the report fully recognises.
The report rightly recognises that the professional duty cannot be overridden, but proposes to deal with that by requiring a client’s consent. That would have to be in advance, as recognised at paragraph 13. It is suggested that not many clients would be deterred. It seems that was based solely on the view of one former holder of high judicial office. I do not think any other evidence was presented. But, very respectfully, I beg to differ. In the field in which I practise, there is almost always significant competition for assignments from different law firms, and, because this is international work, from law firms and lawyers from different countries. If the new disclosure rule comes in, I would have to make it clear, in any pitch or offer, that the client would have to agree to disclose not only that we would be representing them, which in many cases might become public knowledge in due course, but the fees. They may well find that unattractive, because they would be concerned that this information could be misused, for example by political opponents in their own countries. From my experience, I believe that many clients would be deterred.
It goes further than that, because, as I practise in an international law firm, I cannot simply take the view that I can forgo such assignments with equanimity or weaken the showing that we make to potential clients by excluding myself from their possible representation. I have anxiously considered what I should do if this proposal becomes a requirement. I have not finally decided, because for one thing I want to consider all that is said in this debate and its outcome, but I am of the provisional view that I would need to take leave of absence to avoid the dilemma of letting down my partners and colleagues. That is the point that concerns me.
I want to be clear to your Lordships that I am not saying this in terrorem. It is for your Lordships’ House to determine what is best for the House, for Parliament and for the country, and I unreservedly accept whatever decision it reaches. But if that is the route that I  determine to take, I thought it right that your Lordships’ House should know why, not least because it would require me to cease chairing the International Agreements Committee, as it is currently my honour to do. I hope it does not come to that, and that the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, enables more thought in these difficulties areas, but I thought I should tell your Lordships that that is where I am. I do not think I will have another opportunity.

Baroness Deech: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chairman of the Bar Standards Board, which regulates barristers through its code of conduct. By accepting the immense honour of becoming a Member of your Lordships’ House, we explicitly take on certain limitations in the rest of our lives. We take on the Nolan principles; we have to understand conflict of interest and, above all, what it means to act on one’s personal honour and to serve Parliament and the national interest. We have seen, in the recent controversies about civil servants and politicians taking on second jobs, what happens when some of these principles are jeopardised.
The Lords’ Conduct Committee is well aware that, in a small number of professions, there is a duty of confidentiality that makes it difficult for Members to disclose the identity of the Government, organisation or individual to whom services are being provided, and it took that into account. The suggestion that noble Lords should not be required to reveal earnings from foreign work on the basis that it would breach client confidentiality or put them at a commercial disadvantage is, with great respect to noble Lords who are lawyers, without merit.
First, members of the Bar are not obliged to accept foreign work under the Bar code of conduct. Their doing so is a choice. The cab-rank rule does not apply to all foreign work, so a noble Lord can choose whether to accept foreign work and can no doubt advise his or her client that, in so doing, he or she may be required, under the rules of this House, to disclose the level of earnings. It is quite unrealistic to suggest that, if disclosure were required, London would lose its attraction as an arbitration centre. That is, with respect, to regard too highly the contribution made by the handful of lawyers in this House who would be affected by the rule.
Nor is the identity of a client necessarily confidential. One need look only at the websites of, say, Blackstone Chambers, 1 Essex Court, Brick Court or Essex Court Chambers to appreciate that their members—some Members of this House—endlessly list the names of their clients and the prestigious matters in which they have acted for such clients. There may be occasions when advising a particular client is so sensitive that the identity of the client itself cannot be revealed, but, again, that is a matter which should be addressed at the outset with the client by a noble Lord lawyer receiving foreign fees. If the client is not prepared for the noble Lord, his adviser, to discharge his or her duties to this House, the barrister can politely decline to advise and one of the other highly skilled members of the Bar can undertake the work, while the barrister Member of this House will soon be busy with other clients.  Is the objection from lawyer Members of this House more about not wanting to be hampered in competing for arbitration work than it is about the sanctity of client confidentiality or the status of London as an arbitration centre?
What may lie behind their objection is not so much the risk to client confidentiality—which, with great respect, is all but non-existent—but that revealing the scale of foreign earnings could be a source of embarrassment to Members of this House who are both discharging public duties and, at the same time, earning very large fees in respect of foreign work. But that embarrassment is not a reason for this House to reject the proposed rule. On the contrary, it demonstrates the need for the rule. If a barrister Peer feels embarrassed at the thought of revealing earnings or clients, it is a good indication that the brief should be declined.
Nolan principles would have to be applied if a barrister Peer were acting for, say, Hong Kong or Myanmar. This would be very relevant in debates and amendments on, for example, immigration Bills, Armed Forces Bills, national security Bills and even financial conduct Bills. It is of course the perception of conflict of interest that matters. No one is suggesting that Members of this House would actually try to influence proceedings in favour of a client without disclosing it.
In the current climate, it is more important than ever that Members of this House should be clear about their dealings with foreign clients. Any exemption from the proposed new rules risks bringing the reputation of the whole House into disrepute, which most of us very much do not want. Barrister legislators may choose what foreign work to take or not take, bearing in mind their privileged position as parliamentarians. There is, I surmise, no shortage of work for them which does not involve such clients.
We should ask our lawyer colleagues to respect the position of the House, accept the committee report and reject the amendments. Although I have sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, his amendment would delay what needs to be done right now.

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and all members of the Conduct Committee for their service to the House. Sitting on any committee of your Lordships’ House is a responsibility, but none more so than serving on the Conduct Committee. These are difficult matters, but, as has already been said, we do have choices. Being a Member of your Lordships’ House is not something which is forced upon any of us.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, has explained how complex this matter is, certainly from the perspective of the lawyers of this House and possibly other professional Members of this Chamber. But I believe that it is our responsibility to handle complexity with as much simplicity as possible, and to do everything we can to avoid complexity being perceived as an excuse not to do the right thing.
We have to accept that we live in an era where openness and transparency are important aspects of accountability. Because we are an unelected House, these principles are even more important. Putting in  place measures to help us demonstrate our willingness to be accountable for the way we conduct ourselves is important, as is ensuring that we equip ourselves, as a House, to act decisively when one of us fails to meet the standards expected of us in our conduct and behaviour. We cannot always wait for the worst to happen before doing the right thing and hope that a defence of “we would if we could, but we can’t” will stand up to any form of scrutiny.
I understand the arguments that are being made by noble Lords who are opposed to the report and recommendations from the Conduct Committee, but to be absolutely clear, the committee’s recommendations have my full support. I have a huge amount of respect for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the other noble Lords who serve in this House while practising law, but I will not be joining him in the Division Lobby if he divides the House this evening.
I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I am sympathetic to his argument, but I am not sympathetic enough for us to delay accepting the recommendations of the committee’s report today. I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and the committee to consider further what the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, has proposed, but I do not think it is something that should get in the way or delay us today.
In the same vein, I would like to raise one final point. I noted the exchange of correspondence between the committee chair and the Lord Speaker which was published on the committee’s website just a day after it published the report that we are debating this evening. That correspondence is about adding a disrepute clause to our code of conduct. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, explains in his letter to the Lord Speaker that it is not possible for the committee to make a recommendation because there remains
“significant disagreement within the House”
about this matter. I am grateful to the committee for the work that it has done, but it is concerning that this important gap in our sanctions regime remains unresolved, and that it is only being debated behind closed doors. The committee chair’s letter says that this matter will be kept under review, and that is very good. But I ask that, before the letter gathers dust waiting for another serious scandal to happen to prompt action, the committee consider how discussion of this topic could be opened up in order to assist us in resolving it, so that, just as we have seen with the matter that we are debating this evening, the topic could be debated more transparently.

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: My Lords, I start with a declaration of interest. I am a barrister undertaking mostly commercial construction and professional negligence work. I am also a qualified arbitrator, an accredited mediator and an adjudicator, and I do considerable arbitration work as an advocate—although not presently as an arbitrator—much of it international. I have not, to my knowledge, ever been retained by a foreign Government, foreign government agency, or foreign government-controlled entity. But that is happenstance: I have, for example, appeared against a government-controlled entity.
I oppose the proposed changes in principle—not to protect other lawyers but because I believe that they directly conflict with a professional duty of confidentiality which lies at the heart of the lawyer-client relationship. In this debate, I believe that a perceived concern for transparency, even if genuine, threatens to undermine one of the fundamental features of the right to take legal advice in confidence from a lawyer of the client’s choice.
Of course, this issue goes far wider than the law and affects other professions equally, but in the legal context, at any rate, confidentiality is the right of the client and duty of the lawyer. I do not believe it appropriate for lawyers to offer clients the Hobson’s choice between either retaining the lawyer of the client’s choice and losing the right to confidentiality, or retaining another who will abide by the duty of confidentiality. We, as lawyers, have no right to demand that of our clients, actual or prospective. Who is to say that a client seeking advice at the outset of a retainer may permit confidentiality to be released, only deeply to regret it later, when a client never should sensibly have sacrificed confidentiality in the first place?
In the case of arbitration, where the whole process is by agreement confidential—and with respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, it is not publicised—the position is even worse. The confidentiality is also owed to the other party. Imagine a QC Member of this House retained by an entity controlled by the Government of New Zealand in the arbitration of a dispute with a well-known wine maker. Everyone knows that a dispute is under way, but the arbitration is not public knowledge; nor is it known that the New Zealand Government have retained a QC, nor one who is a Member of this House. The New Zealand public would quickly deduce from the register that the dispute had gone to arbitration and the confidentiality of the arbitration would therefore be blown, entirely without the consent and against the will of one of the parties, who had nothing to do with the retainer.
Let us consider a dispute in England, still involving the New Zealand Government but this time concerning a government contract. The New Zealand Government wish to retain a barrister of their choice for the purpose of taking advice well before litigation. As a Peer, that barrister has to demand the release of confidentiality, whether or not that is in the client’s best interests, or to refuse to act. Such a refusal puts a barrister in breach of the cab rank rule, a point not considered by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, when she mentioned this, because the cab rank rule provides that you have to take a case—in England anyway but, yes, not abroad—if you can, subject to well-defined practical exceptions. Maybe the Bar will change its rules, but the cab rank rule is at the heart of what we do; it underpins the principle that any litigant has the right of access to the barrister of his or her choice.
The situation for solicitors is even worse, a point elaborated on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. If a foreign-owned client retains a firm of solicitors, that firm is bound to act in the client’s best interests at all times. If the best expertise in a particular area in the firm was that of a Member of this House, the client would either have to forfeit the right to the advice of the best lawyer for the job or  forfeit the right to confidentiality. That is the point made by the noble and learned Lord, and he is absolutely right: it is not acceptable.
Those are only a few of the conundrums that these new proposals present. Yet there is an uncomplicated solution available, which should be considered, if the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, is passed. In respect of declarations of interest, the code provides at paragraph 97:
“Where a member feels unable to declare a client due to a duty of confidentiality, then the member should not participate in any proceedings or correspond with ministers or officials regarding matters potentially affecting that client.”
If a parallel rule were introduced in respect of registration of foreign interests, the public interest would be protected. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, made similar points. It goes without saying that that requires some trust that Members will comply with the code, but so does every other provision of the code, which we are all bound on our honour to obey.
I urge the House to reconsider and to ask the committee to reconsider, and to support the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. I ask the committee to reconsider its recommendations in the light of this debate and of such further research as it can do, in order to avoid the fundamental conflicts inherent in this proposed change in the code.

Lord Pannick: My Lords, I too declare my interest as a practising barrister. From time to time, I give legal advice to foreign Governments, primarily on constitutional and administrative law. I appear in court to represent foreign Governments on legal issues both in this country and abroad, just as I do for other clients—sometimes, indeed, against those very same Governments.
I was surprised and disappointed by the Conduct Committee’s ninth report, which we are debating today—surprised because the seventh report published last November recognised at paragraph 13 that
“in a small number of professions there is a duty of confidentiality which would make it difficult for members to disclose the identity of the government, organisation or individual to which/whom services are being provided and/or the level of earnings involved. We propose, therefore, that members in such a position would be able to apply for an exemption from the registration requirement.”
Last month’s report abandons this reasoning and these conclusions, and does so based on fundamental misunderstandings of, at least, the role of the barrister and, indeed, the arbitrator.
As the House has heard, the law is one of those professions in which there is a duty of confidentiality to clients. The very fact that a foreign Government are seeking legal advice from a London barrister is often highly confidential to the client. For perfectly proper reasons, the foreign Government may not wish other persons to know that they are seeking legal advice from me or any other foreign barrister. Confidentiality is fundamental to the relationship of lawyer and client, as the Appellate Committee of this House has recognised.
As your Lordships have heard, the consequence of the Conduct Committee report, if agreed, will be that I and other barristers advising and representing foreign  Governments will need to tell prospective clients that we cannot any longer offer them the confidentiality to which they are entitled. The inevitable result will be that many of them will decide to seek legal advice and representation elsewhere.
What is the committee’s justification for this intrusion —and it is an intrusion—into a confidential, perfectly proper and indeed regulated professional relationship? The committee says at paragraph 8 that
“the public interest requires absolute transparency when it comes to members of the national legislature working for a foreign power.”
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, rightly referred to this as the central paragraph of the report. Let us consider the phrase,
“working for a foreign power.”
I have to tell the noble Lord and other Members of this House that, when I sit in Blackstone Chambers drafting a legal advice, I am not working for a foreign power. The very description suggests something sinister and improper. I am giving clients legal advice as to their legal rights and obligations, as I do with all other clients. Some noble Lords—and, I am afraid to say, the committee—fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the role of the barrister.
It is fundamental to the role of the barrister that I am not to be associated with my clients. I act for people of whom I approve, people of whom I disapprove and people to whom I am completely indifferent. The committee fails to understand the role of the barrister. This is more fundamental than a duty of confidentiality. Barristers are not to be associated with their clients, not least because if they were, unpopular people would find it much more difficult to obtain competent representation. No one who understands the ethics of the Bar would think for a moment that for me to give advice to a particular client, whether it be a Government or otherwise, means that I support them in any way whatever.
After summarising the responses that the committee received during the consultation—I was one of those who responded—paragraph 17 of the report simply says blandly that
“the public interest demands that there should be no exemptions to the scheme”.
Why is that? As I have said, legal advice is inherently confidential, it is proper, it is regulated and the barrister is not working for a foreign power. I am not on its team, as seems to be suggested.
The argument is simply this, as I understand it, and the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, made the point: we need to consider how this is perceived by the public. That is the argument. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, nods. My response to him and others who take that view is that if, as I believe, an exemption and other exemptions are justified, it is the task of the Conduct Committee to explain to the public why this is appropriate. It is not for the Conduct Committee to make what I regard as a bad decision because of a fear that the public may otherwise not understand the issue. That is what this comes to. So, for all these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, on behalf of the committee, to agree today that these are fundamental issues that need more consideration, and I ask the committee to think again about this subject.

Earl of Lytton: My Lords, at the consultation stage I sent a very short response on this matter and, having followed progress, I welcome the chance to debate it. I congratulate the Conduct Committee on its work. I am certain I have no relevant foreign interest to declare, unless the presidency of a literary society in Missolonghi, Greece, and having an Austrian wife makes me somehow suspect.
I am mainly a retired surveyor, but most of my life has been concerned with avoiding conflicts of interest with matters of confidentiality, ethics and the public interest. The nation clearly expects higher standards of public figures; that is clear. Some years ago, as a member of the anti-corruption APPG, I noted that the Government-appointed anti-corruption tsar spent more time pointing a finger at foreign powers than addressing the acute issues at home. Standards should surely apply across Parliament. With the greatest respect to other noble Lords, I am not sure that there can be exceptions simply for the fact that noble Lords are unsalaried or it is acknowledged that they have outside interests. It is the legislative process that matters. So, part of me is with the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, but I stress that it is only part.
Peers, as we have heard, are expected to act on their own honour, but it appears from what I will term the Russia report that some do not. In the wake of the Greensill affair, we can also see how vulnerable we may have become domestically and, therefore, how much more so to slick, targeted attempts to influence parliamentarians and Administrations by foreign powers—perhaps jurisdictions where the rule of law does not even wholly apply. If we do not sort this out, the nation will take matters into its own hands, out of disgust, disappointment and distrust in its leaders and parliamentarians. So, this debate is of very great significance if meaningful and trusted dialogue, at the root of the word “Parliament”, is to endure.
I sense, on balance, the probable need to accept what the committee has proposed, but I have reservations. Of course, it might mean changing terms of business and carrying out constant case reviews, and probably arbitrary fee apportionments to establish the earnings, but that is a price I would have to accept, and I could avoid the occasions of risk and further that I am not indispensable. I acknowledge the difference between acting as a professional for a foreign state on its own local administrative matters, and using influence, paid or otherwise, in a manner that seeks to influence our own government legislation of public administration for the benefit of that power.
I am confident that the general public understand the sense of all this, even if not the finer distinctions. We exclude from this House on occasion those who are found guilty of gross bullying, disreputable acts in private, criminality and so on. That nuclear option remains available to us; if Members are shown to have offended, they can be shown the door. Used judiciously, that would have a significantly chilling effect on some of the potential abuses feared by the committee. The report makes clear that register entry accuracy is ultimately the decision of the Peer. It is thus based on trust, as we have heard. However, it does more to capture the activities  of the honest and willing than of a few less-honest Members. None the less, registration and disclosure in debate are important safeguards, and I support the Conduct Committee’s ethic of consistent application of known standards.
A popular absolutism is not helpful either, although how we are seen outside is what counts, even if that viewpoint is not particularly well informed. Disclosures in a public register do more than inform the world of where prejudice might lie. They also tell those with less healthy interests who is operating in certain areas and the companies or states that they deal with, involvements which could be of political or commercial value to outside influences and which could potentially identify targets for attention. I therefore wonder whether, in due course, some limited exceptions will become necessary. I can see the difficulty for the registrar in sifting through varying shades of involvement, while it is not necessarily that difficult for the Peer making the entry. After all, if they are unable to grasp the general principles, then the public might question why they are here in the first place.
We are involved in a world where asymmetric conflict exists. We must be aware of that, and I would be grateful at times for periodic briefing and updates on the issues that we need to be aware of and on how to avoid circumstances of influencing. However, going forward, I suggest the following principles. We do not want to completely discourage willing horses. The register and the rules on declaration must be fair, workable and not unduly oppressive. Involvements that are essentially small-scale, iterative and within clearly defined bounds should not become a burden. Practical thresholds should be kept in mind and reviewed, and the significance of the involvement, rather than just the money received, should be weighed in the balance. The subject matter of that involvement ought to have some relevance. For some, it is not significant, but we must be robust in defending whatever is in place and insisting on compliance.
There is an area for further discussion. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, can assure us that the rolling process of review will continue. On that basis, I would support the committee where it stands at the moment.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I come to this issue for the first time because of the controversy which it has aroused in the House. I have played no part in the previous discussions, but coming to this for the first time, reading the relevant reports and listening to the debate, the issue seems very simple. There is an overriding public interest at stake, and there are private interests which have been submitted to your Lordships, mostly—let us say this openly—by those who have private interests. They should not outweigh the public interest. It is as simple as that. As stated clearly in paragraph 8,
“the public interest requires absolute transparency when it comes to members of the national legislature working for a foreign power.”
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that when he sits in Blackstone Chambers he is not working for a foreign power, but he is if he is paid by that power. He works professionally for it; he is not much use to the  people paying his bills unless he gives them good professional advice. Any reasonable member of the public accepts, however, that the person who pays you is the person you are working for. That does not mean you do not act thoroughly professionally but it does mean you are working for them, and that should therefore be declared. If the act of declaring it causes embarrassment or—following the noble Lord, Lord Marks—means that a client would regard their right to confidentiality as being breached, then that work should not be taken on by a Member of the national legislature. That is the key point at stake here. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, said that the duty of confidentiality is breached because a client cannot choose a lawyer of their choice, but that is not correct. What we are saying here is that a client cannot choose a lawyer of their choice from the legislature of the United Kingdom.
The actual restriction that this measure would impose —let us be frank—is not great in terms of the range of lawyers who can be secured. But in so far as it imposes that restriction it is perfectly justified, for the reason given in paragraph 13 of the report, which quotes a
“former holder of high judicial office”
as saying
“the public interest ultimately must override the issue of client confidentiality”.
I believe that in the cases we are talking about, which involve foreign states and their agencies—let us be clear that in the states we are talking about, the boundaries between the state and its agencies are not always clear—the identity of the client should be revealed, as should the amount that they are paying.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, for whom I have great respect, laid down four premises for the reference back that he moved, none of which actually hold. His first premise was that if we go down this road then we might restrict the capacity of people from a wide range of professions and activities to participate in this House. There is no such restriction. All we are saying is that the public, and other Members of this House, should be fully aware of the activities of those Members—not that they should be restricted, but that they should be transparent. That surely must be a principle at the heart of a modern Parliament. His second premise was that conduct should be regulated by legislation, not by order. He has been a Member of both Houses, so he knows that is palpably not the case. The conduct of both Houses of Parliament is regulated all the time by changes made by order; it is not regulated by changes made by statute.
Thirdly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, says that we should postpone a decision because other committees are looking at whether we should go further. There is a case for going further and the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, made it, but that is not a reason for not doing this. It may be a reason for going further in due course, but we should definitely take this step at the moment because it has been so long under consideration by the responsible committee of this House, which, with one honourable exception, has recommended in favour of it. The fourth point that the noble and learned Lord made is that this restriction of the choice of barristers might not particularly affect or concern President Putin. I am not concerned about President Putin; I am  concerned about your Lordships’ House and the way in which it conducts its affairs and is seen by the British public. What President Putin does is a matter for him.
The issues at stake here are simple and straightforward. There is an overriding public interest. Private interests have been asserted and our job, particularly those of us who do not have such private interests, is to uphold the public interest. Edmund Burke said:
“Liberty does not exist in the absence of morality.”
There is a straightforward moral issue here, which is that those who participate in the making of the law should not have private interests that are not declared, particularly those that may be antithetical to the interests of the state itself. That is a very straightforward interest and it is overriding in the case of the world as it is now, with the assembly of significant powers that are hostile to us. We should make this change, and we should make it today.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: My Lords, when I first read the Conduct Committee’s report, I thought it was very sensible and almost boring. When I heard that there had been extensive lobbying against it, I could not see what the problem was at all. Now, having listened to this debate and heard from noble and learned Lords for whom I have huge respect, I understand the problem. However, as someone with no legal training and who considers herself a member of the public for these particular circumstances, I can assure the House that it is not a good look if we do not pass the Motion on the committee’s report today, and with a huge majority.
Of course, confidentiality is important but I see no argument for why foreign Governments should be owed any duty of confidentiality because they have hired a Member of your Lordships’ House. It does not make sense and I do not think that anyone outside the House of Lords, even perhaps other lawyers, would find it a good idea not to vote for this report. Quite honestly, it is a win for transparency at a moment when sleaze and corruption are flooding our political scene. We really cannot do anything but support the committee’s report.
I am very tempted by the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, because, of course, nothing ever goes far enough for me and I would like to see much more stringent measures. However, at the same time I was swayed by the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about just supporting what the Conduct Committee has done because it has done it with a great deal of thought and consideration. Therefore, I will not vote for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. I certainly will not vote for the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, because I thought his whole argument that we should wait and consider things more was quite nonsensical. Either we do it or not; obviously, we can do it later.
There is also a special provision for lawyers. Paragraph 18 says:
“In recognition of the sensitivity of some legal proceedings we propose that lawyers should be required to disclose the identity of clients only once the relationship has entered the public domain”—
that is very sensible—
“or they have been paid (wholly or in part) for the work, whichever comes first. As with any interest, they would need to make the disclosure within one month of it becoming registrable, but they would have longer to register their fees, as set out in our last report.”
The lawyers are covered here in the sense that if work is current, they do not need to declare it until these other circumstances exist.
Existing regimes often fail to ensure that people in government and politics work for the public interest and not for private gain. We need a legal, formal separation of public service from private enrichment. We need to hold former Ministers, former politicians and even former lawyers to much higher standards than exist at present. I am very happy to support the Conduct Committee’s report and very pleased to have been part of this debate.

Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I must begin by declaring an interest, although compared with some others it is a relatively insignificant one. When I left the Supreme Court in the summer of 2013 and ceased, after four years, to be disqualified from speaking and voting in the House, I returned here with the intention of spending much of my time here. After all, I had spent 13 years as a Law Lord and it had become like a second home to me during those years. I was delighted to come back and be given the opportunity to play a part in the House’s affairs.
However, I received some invitations to sit as an arbitrator and I did three of them, mostly in my spare time, before I was asked to become the Convenor of the Cross Benches. That is a full-time job and I made it clear that I was not prepared to do any more arbitrations. For my four years as Convenor I did not do any. My practice, such as it was, disappeared and that was pretty well the end of it. However, one invitation arrived afterwards and I did accept it. It is an arbitration that is still live, which is why I am directly affected by what this report has to say.
That is because, as in all the other arbitrations I was involved in, one of the parties is state-aided, although not the one by whom I was invited to be the arbitrator—in any of them, as it happens. As noble Lords may know, there are three. Each side chooses one, and the two choose a chairman. I happened to be, in each of them, the non-state-aided nominated party.
I am not at liberty to say which countries these came from. All I can say is that it was not Russia, or Iran, or even China. I was not aware of any security concerns, or any reason why I should declare that interest at the time. My experience also suggests that it is not at all unusual, in arbitrations in which people such as I are involved, for there to be at least one party who is state-aided; it is a relatively commonplace experience.
Time is short, so, with great respect to the noble Baroness, I want to raise two points of detail on the report where I think there may have been a mistake. The first is the need for Members providing legal and arbitrational services to register their details twice. I do not understand why that should be so. Paragraph 55A, under the heading “Directorships”, tells them in peremptory terms that they need to register their  interest under that heading. Then paragraph 57A, under the heading, “Remunerated employment etc”, tells them to do it again.
I do not understand why it should be necessary to do that twice. The first requirement seems to rest on a misconception, because in no respect could an arbitrator be regarded as acting as a director for the state-aided party. In my case I was not nominated by that party anyway, but there is a well-understood rule that you have to declare any interests before you take on a position as an arbitrator. If I were a director of one of the parties, that would disqualify me from being an arbitrator at all. So arbitrations have nothing whatever to with that category and I respectfully suggest that including the requirement to register the details there is an error. It does not matter for the overall picture, because I will certainly register under paragraph 57A—the correct category. So I suggest that that should be looked at again, as there may be an error that should be corrected.
The other point is more personal to me, and it relates to the period of grace as it applies to arbitrators—rather more so than to lawyers. My current arbitration, in which I am one of three, began in 2018-19. The date is important, in the light of paragraph 8, which the noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to, because that date was well before this issue arose at all, so I had no opportunity to discuss with my co-arbitrators—or, indeed, the parties, to whom I am bound by a non-disclosure clause—the possibility of this issue arising. It simply was not in the picture, and I had no opportunity to say, “Sorry, this new rule is coming up and I should withdraw.” So there is a retrospective element in the period of grace, which affects me very much.
Furthermore, although the arbitration started in 2018-19, it is very long-running and complicated, and proceeds in widely separated stages. We had a 14-day hearing in December, the parties’ submissions did not come in until the end of last month, and we are now beginning to consider the first part of our award, which will then be followed by a further stage, and so on. We have been badly affected by the Covid epidemic. Our hearing in December had been delayed by six months: we were going to meet in June but could not do so. Things were further delayed by the fact that all three arbitrators come from different countries, and we are having to discuss our affairs through Zoom, which is a very unsatisfactory way of dealing with a complicated matter that requires deep discussion.
So the arbitration is long-running, and, I have to say, may well not finish by the end of this year. I am in a difficult position, because I am told that if it has not finished by 31 December, I have to take the various steps referred to in the paragraph about the period of grace. The first, which is to finish the arbitration, will not arise in my case. The second is to obtain the consent of the parties to the release of their names and details. I simply do not know whether I can achieve that, given the confidentiality clause.
The final step mentioned is to terminate the relationship. Now you cannot do that in an arbitration. An enormous amount of work has been put into it, and nobody can take my place. If I leave, it would  hugely disrupt the whole process and would probably result in an enormous claim for damages against me for breach of contract. So in that situation I would be driven to seek leave of absence, which I would very much regret having to do.
I was invited by the Convenor to be a member of the Constitution Committee, and I am in my first year of a three-year appointment. I would have to come off that at the end of December, which would be a severe penalty for me. I wonder why I should be put under that penalty for a situation that was not an issue when I took this job—so I suggest that that should be looked at again.
The fair thing to do for people in my position, with an arbitration that began before December 2020 and that is still ongoing and likely to go on beyond the end of the year, is simply to say that this does not apply to that arbitration.
I will make one other point before I finish—I am sorry to be taking so long. An arbitration is a one-off event: it is not a continuing relationship. When it finishes, that is the end and I never see the parties again—whereas a lawyer representing a party may have a continuing relationship with no ending until the party declares it should end. So there is nothing wrong, I would have thought, in simply exempting people in my position from having to get involved in this and having to seek leave of absence. Those are two particular points that I would invite the noble Baroness to look at very carefully at some future date.

Lord Scriven: My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my interests in the register. Those interests include working with several foreign Governments. I have declared these clients; in fact, I have declared all my clients since I came into this House—not because somebody told me to, but because I believe it is the right thing to do. In so doing, I have lost potential work and clients. I advise Ministers, Presidents and senior civil servants on very confidential matters. That is a personal financial issue for me because, first and foremost, I see myself as having the privilege of being a legislator in this Parliament, and that is my primary function and role.
The reason it is the right thing to do is that all noble Lords in this House hold a very privileged and powerful position in being able to influence public and government policy. Our privileged position is further ingrained by the fact that all of us are here for life, without having to be accountable, via an election, to the general public for the decisions we take on their behalf when voting on legislation and influencing public policy. Noble Lords are not ordinary citizens. We have special rights, privileges and duties that mean in a modern parliamentary system our interests should be fully declared. So, as parliamentarians, as we go about our duties trying to influence public policy and legislation, those who are asked to abide by the decisions this Parliament makes can see if any conflicts of interest arise between individual Members and how they vote, the questions they ask or even the debates they take part in. That is one of the central pillars of what a modern, open and transparent parliamentary system should have in place.
Many citizens listening to this debate will be bewildered that some in such a privileged position advocate for a parliamentary system where Members can secretly work and get paid by foreign Governments. Some of them have questionable human rights records, have tried to influence British elections or have tried to undermine the interests of the UK. One reasons they will be bewildered is that they pay taxes, which then go to pay allowances to Members of this House to carry out their parliamentary duties. But some noble Lords who are receiving payments from the public purse want to deny the right of those who are paying our allowances through their taxes to see what conflicts of interest arise from payments by foreign Governments to individual Members of this House.
The report from the Conduct Committee cannot be left to professional bodies and different parts of the legal system debating whether they can get paid in secret for advising foreign Governments, while making laws and influencing public policy in this Parliament. This is a matter first and foremost about the public interest; that must be primary and above any commercial relationships that Members of this House have with foreign Governments.
The seven principles of public life make that very clear. The principles, also referred to as the Nolan principles, apply to anyone who works as a public officeholder. This includes all those who are elected or appointed to public office nationally and locally. The first and primary principle is selflessness:
“Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.”
Another principle is openness:
“Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.”
There is nothing stopping the future disclosure of which foreign Government a Member is advising and getting paid by. The foreign Government will have to make a decision on whether they wish to hire their services on the basis that it will be public and that they will be being advised by a Member of this House. Once that is in the open, it would indeed be in line with the long-held principles of holding office in public life.
Let us be clear. The real issue we are debating is one of potential future commercial relationships with foreign Governments that could have financial implications for some Members of this House. That is a commercial issue and not one that should be central to or influence the rules of conduct that this House has to work to. The Conduct Committee’s report brings the principles of working in the public interest in the most open and transparent ways to the fore. Working in the public interest, underpinned by best practice in openness and transparency, needs to be the bedrock of the rules of this House and must not become blurred or diluted by the commercial or financial impact such rules might have on Members of this House. That is why I fully support the Conduct Committee’s recommendations.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, that while I am sympathetic to what his amendment states, if it slows down the implementation of the committee’s report,  on this occasion, I cannot support it, but if laid in future I will be able wholly and easily to support such an amendment.

Lord Vaux of Harrowden: My Lords, last week, the Times described this debate as a battle of “prominent lawyer-peers”. Not being a lawyer, I tiptoe on to the battlefield with trepidation and hope not to get my head shot off in the crossfire.
To start with, I make it clear that I agree that it is manifestly right that we should be transparent about interests involving foreign states, just as with any potential conflict of interest. However, these rules as proposed appear aimed more at the direct personal provision of advice and seem less well suited to more normal employment situations. I fear they may have unintended consequences in some circumstances.
Let me give a theoretical example based on my experience. Before joining the House, I was employed by a large American multinational company which provided software and related services to a wide range of customers globally, including financial services, education and emergency services. I should be clear that I have not been employed by the company since I joined the House. Most customers were not state-owned organisations, but among them were state-owned banks, sovereign wealth funds, state debt management offices, many hundreds—possibly thousands—of US high schools and universities, and other state authorities and emergency services in the US.
My role in the company, which was not customer facing, would probably not have been affected by the amended code. However, it is easy to see situations where other roles might have been caught. For example, a software engineer or product designer creating something as innocuous as a login module, which might be used across multiple products, could find their work routinely provided to many of the state-related entities I mentioned. Whether that would be caught by the wording of “personally provides services” is not clear to me, but certainly that person’s personal work would be provided to the customer. If that same person was also part of the helpline—perhaps assisting customers having login problems—that would certainly be a personally provided service. In that example, I think people would agree that it clearly would not make sense to have to list the many hundreds of US high schools and universities using the software, only part of which was created by the employee.
On top of that, there is the issue of customer confidentiality. My employment contract included robust customer confidentiality clauses and, as is normal in the industry, most customer contracts also included confidentiality clauses. To meet the proposed code, in my example all of the relevant customers, which might be many hundreds, would need to consent to the disclosure of their details and the employer would need to consent to the breach of the employment contract. That simply would not happen. It would be much easier for the employer to terminate the employment or to employ someone else. Further, it would be difficult, even impossible to say what level of remuneration related to the foreign state entities, even if the employer allowed it.
I confess that I find the wording of paragraphs 57(b) and 64 somewhat confusing. To take my example further, let us say that the Member is paid a fixed salary of £50,000 a year by the employer, and the total annual revenues to the employer from the relevant state-related customers totals many millions out of perhaps many hundreds of millions of the total revenue of the employer. I am not at all clear what should be registered here. Should it be the salary, the revenues by customer for the potentially many hundreds of US high schools, or something in between?
The challenge we face is that every situation is different and a one-size-fits-all approach may have the unintended consequence of causing a perfectly reasonable employment to be terminated. In the example that I have given, would it not be sufficiently transparent to register the employment, describe the types of customers and which countries, and disclose the total remuneration received by the Member from the employer? Providing individual details, as the code will require, including trying to apportion revenues of a host of arm’s-length customers, may not be practical or possible and, frankly, may not add much to the transparency anyway.
I said at the start that I support the principle of these proposed changes and I suspect that the practical issues that I have raised will not be common. Therefore, I do not support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. However, I urge the Conduct Committee to keep under review whether the new rules are creating an impediment to perfectly normal and reasonable employment situations, and if necessary to introduce some flexibility to look at particular situations and advise appropriate disclosure on a case-by-case basis that does not necessarily involve naming the underlying individual clients.
On the other hand, there is one area where the code may need tightening further in respect of foreign state entities—that of employment in a sales or an introduction role. It is not hard to imagine that being a Member of this House might open doors. If, for example, a Member, as an employee or consultant, made or facilitated a sale of a software solution to a foreign state, the Member would not be providing any service to that foreign state customer. The employment or consultancy relationship would have to be registered, but because no service was being personally provided to it the foreign state connection would not have to be disclosed under the proposed rules, even if the Member received a commission from the employer directly related to the sale or introduction. That feels like something that ought to be disclosed.
While I do not agree with everything in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, mainly because we need to recognise that this House is different from the full-time salaried House of Commons, and I will not therefore support the amendment, I agree that these matters must be kept under review to make sure that we are properly transparent about potential conflicts of interest.

Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as an employee of a large multinational executive search and consulting company. In that capacity, I work alongside the boards and  leadership teams of a range of corporations and organisations, primarily supporting them in the appointment of board members, chief executives and other senior executives.
I fully support the declaration of material interests in the register and in the Chamber when addressing the House. The proper declaration of interests is an important part of the structure that provides transparency, gives the public confidence in their lawmakers and protects the integrity of the House. Furthermore and specifically, I, along with the rest of the House, take extremely seriously the spectre of influence by foreign Governments, be that perceived or actual. I therefore welcome the vigour with which the Conduct Committee has approached the issue. I should state that the great majority of the work that I undertake is for publicly listed or privately owned companies and not for government-owned or controlled organisations. The specific effects of these measures on me personally would therefore be extremely limited indeed.
However, the reason for my contributing to this debate is that I am concerned about the direction of travel that the House is taking regarding the declaration of Members’ interests. It is a central tenet of this place that we are an unpaid House, unlike another place. Members are not salaried, although an attendance allowance is available to those who wish to claim. It is therefore important, if we are to avoid a membership consisting solely of those who do not need to work or who are retired, that Members should be able to conduct their legitimate professional activities, provided—this is important—that those activities do not conflict with their duties to Parliament.
If the measures before the House today were to be seen as a precedent, it would then extend in future to commercial as well as governmental clients, and I can see very major problems indeed. I would draw a very clear distinction between, on the one hand, lobbying activities, which are particularly sensitive, especially those undertaken through some sort of personal service arrangement, and, on the other, entirely commercial activities, which have really very little bearing on public life, if any at all, and the business of Parliament. Although the experience I have is in a relatively specialist consulting field, the implications would be very similar for activities such as investment banking, for example.
In my own field, having a requirement to publish the identity of one’s clients, and, indeed, fees charged, sounds superficially attractive as a governance measure. But the consequence would be the imposition of a serious obstacle to the ability of an individual to undertake his or her legitimate business, and in the commercial example, the transparency benefit would be minimal. I will take these points in turn.
First, the very fact that a firm has been commissioned by a company such as the one for which I work, together with the identity of the consultant managing an assignment, could be very sensitive information in the public arena to that client, both internally and externally, particularly in the context of a listed company, where, quite rightly, there are very strict legal governance requirements regarding the disclosure of sensitive and privileged information. If, faced with a choice between   a firm whose involvement would have to be declared and one which would not, it is straightforward to see what the outcome would be.
Then there is the question of the quantum of fees; there are a number of arguments around this field. The first, in my mind, is that there is a world of difference between the fee that a corporate consulting company is paid and the remuneration that an individual employee may receive; it is a complex issue. The second is that the quantum of the fee may give a strong indicator as to the type of assignment being undertaken, which may well in itself be confidential. The third point is that this would be revealing highly commercially confidential information to the great disadvantage of the firm making that disclosure. The fourth is that the client itself may find that sensitive, specific information.
We must tread carefully here, and we should err on the side of caution, and disclosure, where that would help maintain confidence in the integrity of the House, which is its most precious asset. However, we should also be cautious not to set in train a disclosure regime that could prevent legitimate commercial activity with nothing whatever to do with Parliament or national debate. I feel that the emphasis should be on ensuring that Members do not take on work which would compromise them, their reputations or that of this House, in particular with regard to foreign Governments. I do not feel that disclosing a questionable relationship should give any sort of cover whatever, and Members should exercise and demonstrate their own judgment, and act on their personal honour.
There is danger in overdisclosure, and I am concerned that the really important issues may get hidden behind a swarm of irrelevant disclosures. My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier has done the House a great service by having the courage to raise these issues and bring to its attention that there could be significant unintended consequences of overprescriptive regulation.
I think the House should understand clearly that to adopt this measure would essentially mean that people in the type of environment that I am in would not work for foreign Governments. That is fine and I fully accept that but, if that measure were extended to commercial clients, the implication is that people in a consulting and, very possibly, a legal environment would not be able to undertake commercial work. It is very important that the House realises the consequences of what it is adopting.
The ship has sailed in the sense that we have asked the committee to go away and consider these matters and it has reverted to the House, having heard representations, including from me, and given its judgment. I support the thrust of what my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier is trying to do, but I think that that ship has now sailed. However, we need to keep this under close review and should be very cautious about putting forward a situation which means that Members cannot undertake commercial work.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I warmly congratulate and commend my noble friend Lady Donaghy on taking on the serious responsibility of moving the Motion on behalf of the committee  and doing it so effectively. I totally regret that, from one quarter, there was implied criticism that she and the members of the committee somehow did not understand the relationships between client and barrister —or client and advocate, as this is still the United Kingdom.
By contrast, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, described in his very elegant introduction her long, varied and impressive experience, which I commend him for. It is a pity that someone else did not accept that. I have great respect for the noble and learned Lord and his work in this House. He and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—with whom he is having a consultation at the moment—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, who are all speaking today, serve with me on the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee and do some tremendous work. They work hard and contribute a great deal from their legal experience—incidentally, they do it for nothing, which is even better.
However, I disagree fundamentally with his amendment. I hope that, after considering all the aspects of the issue and listening carefully to this debate —particularly the impressive speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who, if I picked up correctly, was chair of the Bar conduct committee so must know a thing or two—he will withdraw his amendment.
I have some sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and was swithering about supporting it if he pushes it to a vote. However, on reflection, I think it would be better—this is the value of this debate, by the way, to listen to what people are saying—to raise it with the committee directly rather than pushing the amendment today, which I fear might not get through anyway. I think I saw my noble friend Lady Donaghy nodding earlier, when the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, was speaking, to indicate that she would accept his suggestion that the committee further examine this.
This report is a follow-up to the report of the committee which was unanimously approved by the House on 2 December, so it is not sudden or unexpected. That report was based on recommendations of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which spent a long time looking at the malign influence of Russia on our democracy. Having served on the ISC for a number of years, I know how very carefully it considers its recommendations. They are based on well-informed evidence, particularly from our very good intelligence agencies, and should not be cast aside lightly.
We should not be looking to ignore the action proposed by the Conduct Committee in any way at any time. But at this current time, as others have said, it would be particularly unwise to reject it for the following two reasons. First, with the Greensill scandal, the reputation of parliamentarians has sunk, sadly, to a new low. The public are rightly appalled at politicians using their positions for preferential treatment to try to amass—not earn— fortunes. The NHS procurement preference had already tarnished reputations, but now, with the involvement of a former Prime Minister, we have reached a nadir. Secondly, the reputation of this House and its very existence is coming under threat from different quarters, some surprising.
I believe that a Second Chamber is vital for our democracy. Those who look at what is happening in Holyrood, where they do not have a revising chamber, will come down on that side as well. I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, agrees with me on that. While I support reform of this Chamber, I recognise that our current membership provides a wide range of experience. However, there remains a challenge to our existence from these different quarters. The challenge is whether we have real democratic accountability, and we should be careful not to provide critics with extra ammunition.
We are also facing increased threats and challenges from Russia and other countries. In the case of Russia, we have the massing of forces on the border with Ukraine to add to the arrest of Alexei Navalny, the Skripal poisoning and many other outrages. When our Government and this Parliament are considering what actions to take in response, whether Magnitsky sanctions or any other measures, we need to be absolutely sure that all Members are taking their decisions in the interests solely of the people of the UK, influenced in no way by outside factors. Our actions need not only to be beyond reproach but to be seen as beyond reproach.
The recommendations have been carefully considered by the Conduct Committee, which has relevant experience and knowledge that we do not all necessarily have. The recommendations have the support of all four independent Members, who have been brought on to that committee for their experience, and they have the support of the three major party representatives on it. They have gone out of their way to consider carefully the representations from the bodies representing lawyers and the substantial advocacy of the Members of this House with vested interests, which we have found again today. Rightly, they conclude, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said, that the public interest must come first. Some might reasonably argue, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, does, that the committee has gone too far to accommodate the interests of the lawyers, including a period of grace until the end of the year. Although, as we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that raises particular problems.
We each must consider how, and particularly why, we are Members of the Lords. Is it to contribute to the good governance of our country by reviewing and revising legislation and challenging the Government—the work of a legislator—or is it to make a fortune? I have no doubt what my purpose here is.
None of us is obliged to continue as active Members if we instead want to make money by advising a foreign Government without registering that interest. We are not saying that Members cannot continue to do this, but they would have to register that interest. We are not saying that work should not be undertaken, just that it should be registered and the record publicly available. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that clients can get confidential advice from barristers who are not Lords. Although it seems that most of the barristers around seem to be here today, there are an awful lot remaining who are not Members of this House. The options of leave of absence and retirement are now available—people in other professions take leave of absence if they feel there is a conflict of interest.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier and the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, will consider their amendments and the House will adopt this report unanimously. That will send a clear, positive message to the public that this House takes its responsibility seriously.

Lord Bhatia: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the speeches made by various noble Lords who are lawyers. I am not a lawyer, but I was impressed by the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. He simplified the whole report, and I am grateful to him. I have therefore decided not to read out the speech that I prepared.

Lord Oates: My Lords, I will also not trespass on the House’s time for too long, because the principal arguments have been made, from both sides, by far more accomplished advocates than I could hope to be. But I want to underline a few specific points.
I accept that the rule may pose difficulties for some individual Members. We heard, for example, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for whom I have a huge amount of respect and on whose committee I have the privilege to serve, about some of these difficulties. Notwithstanding those, the essence of this matter is simple, to my mind: it is whether the public interest should prevail over private interests; whether the manifest public interest in transparency regarding the relationships that legislators choose to have with foreign Governments trumps the private professional interest that individual Members may have in the confidentiality of their relationships with such clients.
We have heard much this afternoon about the obligation on lawyers to protect client confidentiality. With respect to noble Lords who have deployed those arguments, including my noble friend Lord Marks, they do not seem relevant. The Conduct Committee report does not interfere in the duties that lawyers or anyone else owes their clients, nor do I suspect that the committee has the power to interfere, even if it wanted to. No lawyer or other professional is required to break any of their obligations under the proposals of the committee. Members of the House of Lords who choose to represent foreign Governments will be required to seek the agreement of a prospective client to transparency, in advance of taking on that client. If the prospective client is unwilling to agree to such transparency, the Peer then has a choice: whether to represent that client or whether their role as a legislator takes precedence, in which they case they will decline to act.
Many of us make choices in our professional life that are very different from the choices that we would make if we were not legislators. That is absolutely right. As soon as we become legislators, our primary obligation has to be to the public interest. From time to time, that may well curtail our private interests. If, at any time, we determine that our other interests need to take precedence, for whatever reason, we have the option of withdrawing from the House for a period of time via leave of absence, as I did a couple of years ago.
What we cannot do, with all due respect to Boris Johnson, is to think that we can have our cake and eat it. As recent events have served only to underline, transparency is essential to the health of a democracy. It is particularly important when it comes to the relationships that its legislators have with foreign powers. The public rightly demand that transparency. The Intelligence and Security Committee has recommended it specifically for this House, and reason and good governance require it. As we have heard, the Intelligence and Security Committee proposes that we should go further and disclose payments from all employment sources. I support the principles behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. My reticence is only that it would delay this report being adopted. I will certainly support such a Motion if it comes back to us.
It may be that, on occasion, the obligation imposed by the Conduct Committee proves commercially disadvantageous to some Members, but that cannot be our concern. In determining this matter, our concern must solely be with the public interest. In endorsing this report without amendment, we will show that that is exactly where it is.

Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury: My Lords, as someone who since 2018—since retiring as a judge—has been practising as an international arbitrator and legal expert, I must of course disclose a real and substantial interest in the issue being debated this afternoon.
As recent events have shown, the need for transparency in the field of Members’ outside interests is very important, but any change to the rules has to be justified and proportionate. Overregulation and unnecessary regulation are self-defeating as they undermine regulation by bringing it into disrepute, and rushing to judgment in legislation or rules can notoriously lead to difficulties. We should not include unnecessary categories of registrability, especially when they may cause damage; while the report asserts the need for the relatively blanket regulation proposed, it does not really explain why it is necessary.
So far as they relate to the legal profession, the proposed amendments are problematic in three important respects: first, they cut across some fundamental legal principles; secondly, even if that is held not to be a sufficient objection to the rules change, they are also questionable in relation to arbitration; thirdly, while—to be fair—recognising the confidentiality problem, they deal with it in a way which is demonstrably unsatisfactory. On the first point of cutting across principles, I can add very little to what noble Lords, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, have said. However, I add that much has been made of public interest against private interest. While I readily accept that my private interest and theirs can be said to be affected, that is not something that I accept should be taken into account; but the rule of law is as important as anything else, and part of the rule of law is the right to a lawyer of your choice and the right to confidentiality. On any view, that is being cut into.
Turning to my second point, I suggest that even if one were happy in principle with the proposals, it is highly questionable whether they should apply to  arbitrations, at least so far as the appointment of arbitrators is concerned. Commercial arbitrations, whether international or national, are like court cases save that they are mostly held strictly in private; that is one of arbitration’s principal attractions. They are of enormous benefit to this country financially, and not just to individuals, because we are probably the international arbitration centre—indeed, the international legal centre—of choice in the world. It is also right to mention that there are one or two types of arbitration which are public.
Normally there is a panel of three arbitrators, one appointed by each party, and the third appointed by the other two. Even though the three arbitrators are paid by the parties, an arbitrator, whoever appoints him or her, has no duties to any party save to conduct the arbitration independently and fairly; in other words, like a judge. Quite why that makes an arbitral appointment disclosable is a mystery to me other than the—perfectly true—point that the arbitrator may be paid by the foreign power if a foreign power is involved. However, there is no duty to the foreign power; indeed there is positively no duty to act in its interest but a duty simply to act like a judge. I therefore question the applicability of these new regulations to arbitration while freely admitting, as I have said, that this is in my personal interest as well.
Finally, I wonder about the provisions, which have been mentioned already, found in paragraphs 55A and 57A. To the credit of the committee, they try to deal with confidentiality. They say that Members who provide legal services to a foreign Government need not register until one of two conditions is satisfied: first, that the matter is public knowledge; or secondly, that the Member is partly or wholly paid. Condition 1 is, as has already been said by another speaker, entirely sensible, and nobody could quarrel with it. But condition 2, which makes the instruction disclosable only when the lawyer Member is paid, is illogical in principle and perverse in practice. It is illogical because if the matter is confidential, the client’s right to confidentiality is permanent and continues after the lawyer is paid. It is perverse in practice because a lawyer, particularly an arbitrator, will often not be paid—and, indeed, can arrange not to be paid—until the whole matter is over. The idea that the House will know of the Member’s involvement with a foreign Government only once that involvement has terminated is pretty cockeyed, and Members’ purely historic interests or connections are of limited relevance.
I should add that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has shown, the transitional provisions giving effect only to appointments that have been made to date until the end of the year are very problematic.
In conclusion, while I sympathise with and support the whole thrust and basis of the report, I therefore suggest, in agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, that the committee should consider the possibility of introducing some more satisfactory qualifications to the relatively blanket nature of the current proposals.

Lord Grabiner: My Lords, I disclose my interest as—I am afraid—another practising barrister and occasionally as an arbitrator in international  commercial arbitrations. In my career, I have acted for and against sovereign states, and I have participated in arbitrations to which foreign states have been party. Currently, I have no such instructions or appointments.
Essentially, I agree with all the points made just now by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, but, personally, the recommendation of the committee would not be a problem for me and I could live with it. However, I respectfully suggest that serious points of principle arise here, including the points that have been made.
In its November 2020 report, the Conduct Committee recognised the duty of confidentiality owed by lawyers to their clients and by persons, who are often but not invariably lawyers, appointed to act as arbitrators. It proposed—this has been referred to before, but I have a slightly different point to make—that affected Members of your Lordships’ House would be able to apply for an exemption from the registration requirement, and that, if granted exemption by the Registrar of Lords’ Interests,
“the member would … register the type of client”
but would not be required to name the client. That seemed a sensible compromise which would, under the supervision of the registrar, improve transparency and, at the same time, respect the confidentiality concern. I am afraid that I was rather surprised by the follow-up report, which concluded
“that the public interest demands that there should be no exemptions to the scheme”.
With great respect to the majority of members of the committee, that is merely an a priori assertion. I say that because the follow-up report contains no analysis by way of support for or explanation of that bald assertion. In particular, we are not told the mischief that the committee was presumably concerned to exclude by its rejection of the confidentiality exemption.
In my view, the arguments the other way are far more weighty. First, a multitude of entities, including many sovereign states and emanations of them, adopt arbitration as the preferred process for dispute resolution because they desire—indeed, they are entitled to—the privacy of arbitration in a range of complex commercial matters. As other noble Lords have said, they choose English law and London because of the quality and reputation of our legal system and our commercial court, which supervises those arbitrations. They also make that choice because of the world-class reputation of UK-based arbitrators, a significant number of whom are Members of your Lordships’ House.
It may not be widely known among your Lordships, most of whom are, thankfully, not lawyers, that the parties to many, if not most, of those arbitrations are foreign and their underlying disputes have no other UK connection. These legal services make a significant contribution to the UK economy. If, as would usually be the case, the parties to the arbitration are not prepared to waive their entitlement to confidentiality and wish to appoint a Member of this House—for example, a retired Supreme Court Justice—as the arbitrator, the effect of the proposal we are discussing is that she or he would either have to decline the appointment or take leave of absence from the House.
Secondly, it is difficult to understand how or why such an arbitrator Member could—still less, would—be able in any way to advance the interests of the appointing party in the performance of her or his role in this House. The same point applies to an advocate instructed to act in litigation for a sovereign state. Advocates are not lobbyists, public relations consultants or formulators of public opinion. They simply present arguments to judges in court or to arbitrators in arbitration. The key point for me is that there is no identifiable mischief which would result if the suggested exemption were permitted. If there were one, I am sure the Conduct Committee would have spelled it out.
Peers have always been actively encouraged to pursue their outside careers—other noble Lords have made that point. Their worldly experience is what qualifies them to be Members of the House. I hope your Lordships will support the amendment put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier.
I add that London is a world-class centre for legal services and it needs to be strongly supported. The proposal before us is disproportionate and unnecessarily prescriptive. If adopted, it would not improve transparency in any meaningful way and, sadly, it may result in some very talented people taking leave of absence from your Lordships’ House. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is a valuable Member of the House and it would be a sad day if he felt the need in these circumstances to take leave of absence.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, as is known, I am not a lawyer. I have found this debate fascinating and interesting. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, for introducing the debate in the way that she did. I want to mention two speeches which have struck me, without going into detail. One was from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the other was from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. I am not looking for exemptions but, given the proposals in the report, the practicalities of the timing of the particular issue he is involved in are worthy of consideration. I am not looking for exemptions for arbitrators but, in the circumstances of something that was under way before this came on the horizon and which is not due to finish until after the end of December, I could make a special case for that and it is worthy of consideration.
Paragraph 1 makes clear that the report came as a result, as has been said, of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on Russia. Published in July 2020, the report was of course completed well before the 2019 general election. Paragraph 54 of that report is the kernel of this, where it sets out certain concerns. These related exclusively to Russia. It says that
“members of the Russian elite who are closely linked to Putin are identified as being involved with charitable and/or political organisations in the UK”,
and we could name them. It goes on to say that
“a number of Members of the House of Lords have business interests linked to Russia, or work directly for major Russian companies linked to the Russian state—these relationships should be carefully scrutinised, given the potential for the Russian state to exploit them.”
I think it went on to say that the code of conduct of the Lords should be made closer to that of the Commons.
The government response to the report is interesting and, of course, it was published on the same day as the report. On paragraph 54, the Government said:
“The Government is confident that the Conduct Committee will give due consideration to the recommendations.”
In other words, get on with it. It was not, “Do nothing about it”, it was, “Get on and do something about it.” In my simple, non-lawyerly view, the case is open and shut. The report should be supported as it is. The reputation of the House of Lords is the most important issue. Of course, individual and professional courtesies apply, as in all walks of life, but they are secondary to the House’s reputation. It is not about perception: the public are not stupid. They can see a dud area when it is put in front of them, and the reputation of the House is subject to massive damage, which undermines the principle of what we do.
We can all make complaints about the size of the House and our procedures, and look for reform, but the fact is that, by and large, it is accepted that we have a right to ask the House of Commons to think again and again on certain issues, and that is a legitimate way—we have had some examples, I understand, from the other place today. I can see, of course, that titles are not unimportant to marketing, legal and other similar services. It is obvious, but why should there be exemptions for lawyers alone? It does not apply to any other professions, such as professional engineers working abroad on massive overseas exercises and projects and Members of your Lordships’ House. The result of the consultation on possible exemption for lawyers is not such that I would agree that the perception on the reputation of the House takes second place, because that is effectively what people are saying. I think it is absolutely clear-cut: if the House wants to put its reputation first, it should support the report.
I also fully accept that we are unpaid. In my case, I am retired on a House of Commons gold-plated pension, so I have no outside interest and I did not work after I left government—and I count the Food Standards Agency in that. So, maintaining outside interests for people coming into the House at a younger age is important. Maintaining the expertise is fine, but who is it for? Is it for the House to share the knowledge, or the individual? I can honestly say that I took the opportunity to check some Hansard records, and at least two Members on the speakers’ list today have not contributed to the House for three years. They have not given the benefit of their expertise to the House. They are on the speakers’ list today; they are not on leave of absence. Let us be clear about this: it is an open and shut case, and there are vested interests galore.
To be honest, I would go further. I do not want to vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and I hope he will not push it, but I think compulsory leave of absence should take place when working for foreign interests. This would make it clear that active membership of the House is not permitted during this time. The public would understand that, the House would understand that, the media and those who watch the second Chamber would understand that.
If that is the consequence of this, I would go further than the report. But I think the report should be supported. The four independent members were  appointed for their expertise. It was a quite deliberate decision to have a large number of independent members on the Conduct Committee when it replaced the old Standards and Privileges Committee. We were expected to take cognisance of their expertise and their view of the reputation of the House. I rest my case in support of the report.

Lord Mann: My Lords, we have heard several times how we non-lawyers do not understand the principles and complexity of the legal profession. I will quote a recent article on international arbiters.
“The linguistic challenges in international arbitration can be both numerous and significant, with the potential to not only increase the cost and time spent on proceedings, but actually impact the entire outcome of the case.”
We have heard six international arbiters speak, so they will be familiar with the case of Occidental v Ecuador from seven years ago. That case, Ecuador being a state, would obviously be covered in some way by this. The cost of mistranslation was around $2 billion. When I set up a family-owned translation and interpreting company specialising in complex negotiations, I did not pay what I suspect the daily rates were for senior barristers and other legal professionals. We had to pay—it was a few years ago when I last did it—£500 a day. For Korean it was £700. Certain obscure languages would be more. We had to sign confidentiality clauses. There was no option; we could not negotiate to see whether the client wanted it or not. We had to do so.
If I still had that company now, I would be covered by this. It is not just lawyers and the legal profession who are impacted, and I have no problem whatever with the principle. I would have had no negotiating power there. If I had refused to sign a confidentiality agreement because I could not do so, I would not have got the job, full stop. There is no question about it. There was no negotiation potential. Some of the companies, Governments and state institutions were precisely the ones that would be covered by this.
Let us not pretend that only one specific profession is impacted by this. It is a little shameful that what, in the case of Occidental v Ecuador, was called the normal approach of international arbiters to forget about the importance of the translators in the work they do did not manifest itself among the issues that have been raised with the committee. Actually, if you think about it, they are far starker, because there is no negotiating power whatever.
From the language I hear, I get a sense of déjà vu. I wrote and co-presented the trade union submission to the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life and its successor committee. I had the job of persuading the senior Labour politicians, because of the links, that they were not going to get the kind of support that some of them were used to without it being declared publicly. It was difficult, because they said, “Hang on a minute. This is quite different. This is not about sleaze or cash for questions.” I am a member of that union, I have a long association with it, and I remember the special pleading every time. Thankfully, Rodney Bickerstaffe, the former boss of the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, came to me early on and said, “I’ve got your back if any of these rather famous politicians ever try to have a go at you over this.”
I won on the principle that standards in public life are not divisible and that you cannot claim special interests because of your particular perspective, which is exactly what was happening there. People said, “We are different. We have this relationship.” The same arguments were put coherently, eloquently and forcefully, but they were no different. In that situation, why should the public not know if a trade union had given some money to a politician? What is wrong with that? What is wrong with transparency?
I think of the Commons expenses scandal, which I warned the Prime Minister about 18 months before it became public. I successfully put a resolution through the Commons 12 months before it became public, and I did so without the Whips—I used devices that they had not quite caught up with, and I think it is fair to say that it sneaked through. That reversed and banned the so-called “flipping” of homes. The powers that be were stupid enough not to implement what Parliament had said, and we then saw the explosive consequences.
However, I was castigated again, repeatedly and constantly, as were a handful of others who said the same thing. They said, “We are people of honour”, to which the response is, “Yes, you are, and your honour will be strengthened by transparency. If anybody is not honourable, they will be caught out by transparency, and their behaviour will therefore change”. One did not need to cast aspersions on anybody then in relation to those principles. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, but not on the detail of his amendment. We need to go a lot further and extend it to Peers who go to embassies abroad. That should be logged and available for the public to see, as should all-party groups that do the same. Transparency is not a bad thing.
We choose to come here. No one has to come here, just as I did not have to stand and be elected as a parliamentarian. When I did, I sold my business because I thought it was invidious to be bidding for work on government contracts when I was on the inside, not because I could not account for it or because it was dishonest. It seemed uncomfortable to me. That is a price worth paying to speak out in our democracy. We are not even elected here. How could anybody not vote for more transparency and for these proposals?

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, I do not think that I have any interests to declare, but, because I am a member of the independent committee of the Bank of England that does enforcement decision-making, and because I am chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, I emphasise that I am speaking purely in a personal capacity.
I have spent more than 30 years—18 of them in this House, the others outside it—dealing with foreign policy. I was not working for foreign Governments but dealing with foreign policy; I want to make that clear. There has been a profound change in how foreign Governments and their agents seek to undermine, disrupt, manipulate, contort and use their resources to advance their interests and to undermine other countries’ interests.
I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, in presenting this report, has emphasised that this is not just about Russia and China, but it is about countries like Russia and China, and a whole lot of other states—many Middle Eastern powers and others—which use the UK’s open, transparent and democratic system to undermine our interests. That is what is at the heart of this. This may not have been the case 30 years ago but it is palpable and tangible, on a daily basis, to anyone who reads anything about foreign affairs in today’s world.
For me, there is nothing extraordinary in asking British parliamentarians who provide advisory services to foreign Governments to declare that and to declare the fee—in other words, their piece of gold—to advantage another Government. I use the word “advantage” advisedly. Most reasonable people would consider it a fairly proportionate ask. That these people are forbidden from providing such services is not what the report is calling for; all it is calling for is for them to tell us who they are working for and how much they are being paid. What is unreasonable about that? It would allow the public to assess the motivation of those Peers, our colleagues, working as lawmakers, and see where they are coming from.
I am grateful to Transparency International for providing a briefing which selected the numerous Members of this House who had declared in the register of interests working with or for foreign Governments. I have long watched that space—perhaps I have been more conscious of it because of the work that I have done. One of the interesting things that stands out is that those people are doing what we are now asking this other very small cohort to do. This is not that unusual. People already have to declare when they work for unsavoury Governments of all kinds, such as Bahrain, Kazakhstan, a host of “stans”, Russia and China, whatever. What is the outlier here? In the case of the work that we are talking about today, if the public want to know what is going on, and if we want to know what is going on, we have to open a national newspaper, where we will occasionally come across an interesting point that we had not been aware of.
It has been said that the information that people are being asked to provide today is of limited value. It may well be of limited value, because it is historic, but, nevertheless, it would be available. Even looking at historic information helps the public to know that somebody who is speaking about a law today might have had some interest in the past. That is the value of it.
Let me turn to the argument that London’s status would be diminished if a handful of lawyers potentially hold back from working for a foreign Government or its agents. London is not Andorra; it is not San Marino. The City of London’s reputation is solid and it will not be diminished; rather, it will be held in higher regard if it is known that, when you buy a British lawyer—potentially the best in the world, we are told—that will be known to all and sundry. I suspect that Governments would be proud to say to their domestic populations, “Yeah, we went out for the best”.
Of course, we will all be terribly sorry to lose the expertise of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith —or indeed any other noble Lord who may wish to no  longer participate—if he has to take a leave of absence. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said, we all make choices; we make choices as to whether or not to participate here.
Others have mentioned the fact that the clients of corporate law firms may have to forego using the lawyer of their choice. This may be so, but companies and clients around the world are frequently barred from using the lawyer of their choice simply because they cannot afford that lawyer. The bar exists in any event; it would not be a new innovation.
When it comes to the definition of “working” for a foreign Government or foreign power, there is the idea that giving advice is not “working” and does not imply support for the foreign power. But we know that public perceptions are important, and, for the public, of course it implies support—they are not going to go through the detail of professional standards at the Bar Council. If the public see in the register in retrospect that, historically, a particular lawyer has done a certain piece of work, and then that lawyer speaks with a level of expertise on a certain matter, the public can determine whether or not the expertise is warranted and whether to give any weight to it.
I have listened carefully to the very thoughtful points made by so many distinguished noble and learned Lords and lawyers today, but it is my view that if this is unfair—it might seem so, and it may even be somewhat unfair—then upholding the highest standards that we can and retaining public trust in our institutions is worth the curtailment of their freedom. If they wish to remain with us here in this House, they should rightly be prepared to take this step. We all make sacrifices in the interests of probity, integrity and democracy.

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd: My Lords, at this late stage in the debate all the principles have been canvassed, so I will speak briefly. Before I do so, I declare two particular interests: I sit as a judge in Qatar as president of the Qatar International Court, having been appointed by the state of Qatar in 2018, and I sit as an arbitrator practising in London in commercial arbitrations, although I have not sat in a dispute where one of the parties was a foreign state.
As this debate has shown, there are two conflicting issues of principle. First, there is the fundamental right of the client of any lawyer to confidentiality between him and the lawyer and the fundamental rule of confidentiality in arbitrations. The other conflicting principle is the imperative in a democracy for transparency and, to that end, that the interests of all Members of the legislature are disclosed. The objective of the Conduct Committee was to balance these conflicting principles. That was not an easy task, as the committee had to balance, first, the potential damage to London as one of the leading centres in the world for dispute resolution, both in court and arbitration; secondly, the potential risk that foreign Governments would not be able to take advice from some of the ablest lawyers in the UK, or that some of the ablest lawyers in the UK would be disadvantaged; and, thirdly, the potential damage to our democracy and to public confidence in the House.
In my view, in matters of this kind we as a House should generally respect the judgment of the committee on such a balance. The committee has consulted. It is a body that contains independent members, and independent members often have a different and balanced perspective. The House should therefore not lightly go against such a judgment and decision. However, it is not necessary for me to resort to saying that because I am of the view that the committee has reached the right judgment in the report on balancing the two conflicting interests.
First, the requirement is not intended to be retrospective. It would be difficult, in accordance with principle, to make it retrospective as there are, in certain circumstances, commitments that have been undertaken, and it is the duty of the person concerned to continue with them and with the existing rules. As there are likely to be current matters that run on beyond the grace period—a year, as many will know to their cost, is often a short time in some arbitrations—the requirement of confidentiality should not be applied so that it operates retrospectively. However, for the future there can be no doubt about the proper course of action.
If the report is adopted, a foreign state will be told when it seeks to instruct a Member of this House that the fact that it has sought legal advice or representation by a Member of this House, or has appointed a Member of this House as an arbitrator, will be made public; it will have to disclose that fact and the remuneration paid. If the state does not wish that to be made public then it will not go to that particular Member of this House. However, I cannot see how that can damage London. The strength of London is that there are sufficient persons of great skill and eminence who can provide these services. In my view, that very strength makes it extremely unlikely that any damage would result from the judgment that the committee has made.
Clearly, there will be disadvantage to some. But it is a fact of life as a lawyer that you have to disclose interests when they arise. When there is a conflict or the client learns of certain interests, he may decide not to instruct that person. I see no difference in principle between that position and the position that would require disclosure by a Member of this House. Clients are used to dealing with situations of that kind. The position may be different for members of large law firms, as they would be disabling their partners from accepting such work. But unless a special exemption was crafted for such a person, I do not see how that should prevent the adoption of this report, damaging though it might be to one or two individuals.
When one looks at the position on the other side, no one in this House can have the slightest doubt about the integrity of the lawyer Members; nor would anyone for a moment think that any lawyer advising or representing a client would be influenced by that activity in relation to the business of the House. However, in these matters, the public’s perception is all. I do wish lawyers were better understood by the public—that the public understood their role and shared the views of those in this House about the way lawyers act. However, that is not a realistic expectation. It is important  that we are fully transparent. What matters is the public’s judgment of the way we conduct ourselves. Transparency is essential and it must, subject to retrospectivity, take precedence over confidentiality. For these reasons, I hope the House will agree to the report.

Viscount Waverley: My Lords, this debate leaves absolutely nothing to doubt. Transparency is all. I have always been an advocate of overly declaring and have no problem whatever with the provisions today. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, somewhat. While not being totally hypothetical, that is not the principal cause of my remarks, which I will come to in a moment.
I am founder of an internet-based platform, supplyfinder.com, which is properly declared. It covers 224 countries and works in the UK’s interest. It is conceivable, however, that the export promotion agencies of any country may wish to avail themselves of the opportunity to extol their exporters, or the country as an inward investment destination. That agency may be a promotion agency wholly owned by a state. I only mention this because of the issue concerning the state. I am not lobbying for the state, but states have the opportunity to put certain issues relating to their activities on to the site.
Turning to my principal points, the Nolan principles of public life are not difficult to comprehend and should come as second nature when partaking in parliamentary or governmental affairs or the Civil Service, or when they need adding to local government. My driving dynamic in your Lordships’ House has been to attempt to bring first-hand insight and balance to many complex issues, principally those from afar. While always hoping for constructive and stable relationships, it is necessary to get under the skin of a subject and to attempt to ensure that channels for dialogue are open. Today’s mounting tensions with Russia are testimony to that, with dialogue in the deep freeze.
I hope that I might be excused, therefore, in putting on record some matters in relation to that country, particularly given that the report before us has Russia with any possible influence—which in my case is zero—in Parliament as its focus. Members of the committee might be aware that the Sunday Times referred recently to several Members of your Lordships’ House, myself included, in the context of Russia. Hansard records that I have addressed Russia in substantive remarks on three occasions. First, when Russia was debated on 7 June 2000, then on Chechnya and the North Caucasus when debated on 5 May 2011 and, finally, during my remarks in a debate that I introduced on relations with that country on 29 January 2018.
Some time after that 2018 debate, I ventured to Russia, paying my expenses lock, stock and barrel. However, that included being invited—again, properly declared—to the St Petersburg International Economic Forum to speak. Given that the current British ambassador in Moscow is patron of the Russo-British Chamber of Commerce in Moscow and London, with her husband serving as executive director, I assume that that presents no issue of concern.
Subsequently, while attending a Speakers’ conference of 40 regional Parliaments in Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan, where the Speaker of the Russian Duma was also present, our respective minders inquired whether a call on Speaker Volodin would be of interest. It seemed churlish not to accept. I set out in detail all the deep concerns of the United Kingdom. Speaker Volodin remarked that no parliamentarian from the UK had called on him, yet parliamentary delegations from various European parliaments had done so. We discussed how parliamentary exchange might be affected, given that the IPU UK chairman had placed an embargo on any dialogue with Russia, with a firm proviso that there be no calls that included the Kremlin, and conditional on opposition political parties being included in any programme. A visit was facilitated by the Council of Europe. I was accompanied by two senior Members of your Lordships’ House—the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who is in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, who is not in his place.
We were briefed prior to departure by senior members of the Foreign Office, including at director level. Their principal concerns were that the Russians would manipulate the visit to their ends. I will conclude by confirming that the Russians did not do so and have not done so, and conducted themselves in an appropriate manner. The trip met our objectives, with the Russian side keeping in line with our pre-established conditions. I leave it to this committee and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to draw their own conclusions.
The report before us rightly recommends that in case of doubt one should err on the side of registration. That process would benefit from having any clarification deemed appropriate added to avoid erroneous perception whereby when one does declare, by the letter of the arrangements, it could be perceived as not telling the whole story. It would therefore be helpful to add a short clarification so that the public are aware of the detail.
I have certainly welcomed the opportunity to counter the remarks reported in the Sunday Times that, in my regard, were played absolutely with a straight bat in the United Kingdom’s best interests.

Baroness Donaghy: My Lords, I am very glad that we have had this debate. I shall thank one or two people before I reply. First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston. It is always very nice to have a former Leader of the House backing you up. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who hit the nail on the head about the decisions we are taking today. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, for his collegiate approach, which is very much appreciated.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in today’s important debate on what is a difficult issue. The views expressed are strongly and sincerely held. I cannot promise to address all the points made, but I will answer as many as I can, not necessarily in the order of those speaking.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, raised points about his long and ongoing arbitration. I think the committee, in keeping all this under constant  review, will also keep an eye on the grace period. If it becomes clear that there are a lot of difficulties like those that he outlined which cannot be resolved by the end of 2021, I am sure it would consider extending the period. I am rather sorry that one noble Lord criticised the grace period and said it did not mean anything, because the intention was to make life easier, particularly for the lawyers. On the noble and learned Lord’s point about arbitration, it needs to be registered in either category 1 or 2, not both. It will almost certainly be category 2 in his case, but we mentioned it in category 1 just in case an arbitrator set up an arbitration company of which he was a director, which would make it a category 1 entry.
I will deal with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, echoed by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in the previous speech. When we say “services”, we do not mean it in the sense of the services sector; we mean literally anything provided in return for money. A one-off sale of something might be caught if the Member worked on achieving the sale. We will keep things under close review and, if employed Members are suffering a detriment from their employer because of the new disclosure requirements, we will look to see whether we can address that. The noble Lord gave the example of software, and I think the noble Viscount did as well. There would have to be substantial and direct contact with the client to make it subject to these rules. It could be either the revenue received by the firm or the money received by the Member. If any clarification is required, I am sure that the registrar of interests would help out where there is any lack of certainty.
I turn to the issue on which some noble Lords felt very strongly: that we consulted Members and their professional bodies but then appeared to have ignored the results or gone against their advice. The response to our consultation covered the full spectrum of opinion, from wanting no exemptions whatever to objecting to the scheme on principle. There was no consensus on the right thing to do. With regard to the representations made by professional bodies, we gave those from the legal profession particular consideration. We recognise the duty of confidentiality that lawyers have to their clients, and have therefore proposed specific provisions to account for them. Not only will lawyers benefit from the grace period for existing clients and the prospective nature of the new requirements, they will also have a special provision allowing them to delay disclosure of clients until they have been paid.
I am the first to say that the UK is top of the tree when it comes to our legal expertise and arbitrators; I had experience of some of that when I was chair of ACAS. Preventing Members of this House, many of whom are leading members of the UK’s legal profession, from doing this would seriously undermine that reputation, they maintain. The Conduct Committee believes that the public interest requires absolute transparency when it comes to Members of the national legislature working with a foreign power. We do not dispute that many Members who are of great benefit to this House are also of great benefit to their professions and, by extension, the UK’s reputation in those areas. There are, however, very many more outstanding lawyers   and arbitrators who are not Members of this House, and we doubt that the UK’s reputation in these fields will be seriously undermined.
I could try to pick up all the points made by noble Lords, but in view of the time I will not cover most of the points; I hope that I have done the ones that people were most concerned about. I reassure noble Lords of what I said in my introductory remarks: the Conduct Committee will keep this under review, and advice will be available from the registrar of interests. The House knows that the time is right for this reform. I have deliberately not mentioned all the headlines that have been in the papers for the last week or so; this is an issue affecting us, it is a recommendation from the Conduct Committee, and I am not getting involved in those areas. The time is right for this reform; I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, will feel able to withdraw his amendment in the light of some of the assurances that I have given.

Lord Garnier: My Lords, as I did at the outset, I once again thank the noble Baroness for her introduction to this debate and, indeed, for her wind-up just now. It was a model of moderate and—to some extent, but not altogether—persuasive advocacy. That having been said, it is right that we should acknowledge, as I think I fairly pointed out in my own remarks a little while ago, that this is not a lawyer’s whinge. The fact that a number of lawyers who are Members of this House have spoken is not something we should be ashamed of, nor retreat from; they demonstrate the practical consequence of what could happen if this proposal goes through.
As has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, noble and learned Lords, and Members of this House who are lawyers or in other professions, it is fair to say that there is a genuine conflict between the public interest in transparency about what we do in this House and the public interest—it is a public interest, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, most correctly pointed out, aided by the noble Lords, Lord Grabiner, Lord Marks and Lord Pannick—in the private relationship of confidentiality between a lawyer or any other professional, be it a doctor, an architect, an accountant, even the great translator, the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and their client. Without that confidentiality being maintained, respected and understood by this House, there will be an undermining of the rule of law and all that goes with it.
It is not something we can set aside lightly. I accept, however, that it can be set aside if it is done deliberately by a House of Parliament—this House of Parliament—having advised itself and considered where it believes the balance between those two public interests should be resolved. Clearly, the sense I get this evening from those who have spoken in this debate is that this House considers that the public interest in transparency outweighs the public interest in permitting the continuance of a Member of this House, as a lawyer, maintaining and seeking to preserve—and indeed upholding—the privacy and confidentiality of his or her relationship with a client, no matter whether that client be a foreign state or a private individual.
Let me just touch upon the expression “a foreign state”. The report, at paragraph 8, in my view tendentiously, uses the phrase “a foreign power”. It takes me back to John Buchan novels. Of course, I suspect that that expression was used deliberately because it creates an impression. Indeed, it created a sufficient impression on the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, that she went one stage further and drew our attention not only to lawyers working for a foreign power but to lawyers being bought by a foreign power. She thus ignored, if I may say so with the greatest respect, that proper relationship between a lawyer who is instructed to act independently and to use his judgment as an officer of the court, and the client—it, him or herself. One would no more accuse the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, of being an agent for a murderer because he defends a man on a charge of murder at the Old Bailey, than one would accuse him of being an agent of some foreign power because he has been instructed to represent it in an arbitration.
We need to use our language carefully in debates such as this, because the backdrop to it—albeit that the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, very properly and deliberately, did not enter into this arena—is, as we all know, sleaze: Russian suborning of Members of both Houses of Parliament for malign political or diplomatic ends, and the recent problems caused by the David Cameron and Greensill Capital matter. They are, as I said at the outset, wholly irrelevant to what we are here deciding—and the noble Baroness was perfectly correct to distance herself from those—but some of us, for good rhetorical reasons, no doubt, have decided to conflate those questions. That, of course, is entirely their right. It is not, to my mind, attractive, but that is of course their right.
There is a difference, as I said, between those two public interests, and this House has a right to decide which takes precedence in this particular matter. There is a difference between making a declaration and making a registration of one’s interests, of all sorts, and it is not a declaration or registration that applies only to complaining lawyers. It applies to all of us. It particularly applies to all of us who have outside, paid interests.
There is also a vast difference—and here, I bring the debate back to an area where the noble Baroness did not want to go—between spivery, or commercial paid lobbying, and legitimate commercial activity. We heard that from the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and we heard it from a number of other Members of this House who may or may not be lawyers, and some who most definitely are.
I want briefly to touch on what I thought was one of the most effective contributions this evening: that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. He gently but hugely persuasively pointed out that, despite the enthusiasm of the majority of those who have spoken tonight, there are likely to be unintended consequences of swallowing this report whole. I am grateful that the noble Baroness, having no doubt listened to him, is prepared to keep an open door—I think I quote her correctly; she used that expression or something similar—so that, even if this Motion goes through unamended tonight, the matter is not closed.
I hope that other members of the committee and all Members of this House will agree with the noble Baroness because, if we are to shut this door so that good, honest, reputable Members of this House such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith—he did not terrorise me when he said that he might have to take a leave of absence—feel that they have no option but to depart this place, it will not hurt them but it will undermine and damage the standing of this House. We benefit from the presence of great lawyers, architects, accountants and professionals of all sorts in this House; we are not diminished by it. I urge this House: please beware the unintended consequences, take the noble Baroness at her word and allow us, if this does not pan out well, for the benefit of the public and this House—forget the benefit of the lawyers—to make sure that the door of this committee is open and never closed.
When he was the majority leader in the United States Senate, Lyndon Johnson said that a politician needed to know how to do only one thing: add up. I have done a little calculation. It would be unwise, even Balaclava-like, to charge through the Division Lobby this evening—much as I would enjoy the punch-up. Bearing in mind both what the noble Baroness has said this evening about her door being open and the damage that would be caused if this were put to a vote and decisively defeated, it would be better for me to seek the leave of this House to withdraw my amendment.
I do so with gratitude to all those who have spoken in this debate on both sides of the argument. This debate needed to be had and, if we are to be told what we are to do, who we may talk to and who we may work for outside this House, well, we must have the debate publicly in this Chamber. I would like to see it done via legislation but that is a different matter, and I am delighted that we have done it here and not just in the close confines of a small conduct committee.
I have spoken too much and too often. I have so many interests to declare, having listened to what has been said tonight, that I may have to take a leave of absence—at least until next week. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Garnier’s amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Amendment to the Motion

Lord Balfe: Tabled by Lord Balfe
As an amendment to the Motion in the name of Baroness Donaghy, at end insert “but, while welcoming the report, believes that it only deals with a small part of the issues that need addressing; further believes that if the public are to be supportive of legislation, they have a right to know the full financial interests of legislators; asks the Select Committee to examine the need for the House to adopt disclosure rules as close as possible to those operated by the House of Commons; and instructs the Committee to bring forward a further report exploring this matter.”

Lord Balfe: I will speak very briefly. I appreciated in particular the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mann. We need to keep an eye on what might be charging over the horizon—and to keep our way of doing things in this House open and transparent.
I reflect that 56 years ago this week I strode over the steps of the Foreign Office as a very junior member of staff. Since then I have spent most of my life talking to people, many of whom have been quite objectionable. However, I have always tried to talk to them at our expense. One very useful thing has been the Lord Speaker’s fund, which allows you to visit countries of the Council of Europe at the expense of this Parliament. You are never in a country where you are asking for anything at all because the House pays the fare and the subsistence. It is a very valuable programme as it enables people to talk to others without being beholden to them. It is the programme on which the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and I went to Russia.
It is important to talk and, of course, not all relationships are financial. Tomorrow morning I shall be having coffee with the Turkmenistan ambassador. Now, many people have things to say about Turkmenistan and its attitude to such matters as human rights, but  this is part of a big jigsaw, is it not? You have coffee with him, which is not a declarable interest; it is important that we do not retreat into a laager. In 25 years in the European Parliament, I spent a huge amount of time talking to people who, let us say, were not our cup of tea—people such as the French National Front and others beyond that.
With all that in mind, and in the hope that, through the Conduct Committee, we will as a House look into the possibility of expanding and clarifying our areas of declaration so that they become closer to those in the Commons than they are at the moment, I will not press my amendment.
Lord Balfe’s amendment to the Motion not moved.
Motion agreed.
House adjourned at 8.42 pm.